5t^ 


J 


i 


THE 


PRIMACY 

OF    THE 

APOSTOLIC    SEE, 

AND    THK 

AUTHORITY  OF  GENERAL  COUNCILS, 
V  I  N  D  I  C  A  T  E  D. 

IN    A    SERIES    OF    LETTERS 

ADDRESSED  TO  THE 

RIGHT   REV.   J.  H.  HOPKINS,  D.D. 

BISHOP  OF  THE  TROTESTAST  EPISCOPAL  CHIRCH  OF   VERMONT. 
nV    THC 

RIGHT   REV.   FRANCIS   PATRICK   KENRICK,    D.D. 

BISHOP  OF  ARATH,  A5D  COADJUTOR  OF  THE  BISHOP  oF  PHILADELPHIA. 


"Omnia  te  video  dixis.-je  ronira  Calholiram  :  inio  iniilia  pro 
Catholica,  cum  Catln)liciis  iioii  sis."— (>/(<a/uj(,  /.  ],^:>,p.4. 


I'im-.\I)i:i,l'III.\: 

JAMES  KAY,  JUN.  &  BROTHER,  1^>  CHESTNUT  STREET 

I'lTT.sni'RCM  :     JOHN     I.    KAY    Sc    CO. 
Il.M.TIMOHF.  :    y.  I.rtAS,  JI.N. 

1838. 


Entered  according  to  the  act  of  congress,  in  the  year  1837,  by  Francis  Patrick 
Kenrick,  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  in  and 
for  the  eastern  district  of  Pennsylvania. 


TO  THE 


MOST  REV.   SAMUEL    ECCLESTON, 

ARCHBISHOP  OF  BALTIMORE. 


Most  Reverend  Sir  : 

Your  eminent  station,  and  still  more  your  zeal 
for  our  holy  Religion,  encourage  me  to  inscribe  to 
you  the  following  Letters,  directed  to  vindicate  the 
Primacy  of  the  Apostolic  See.  The  influence  of 
your  example  must  be  powerful  with  those  who 
reflect  that  you  sacrificed  early  prejudice  to  truth, 
and  that  whilst  you  yield  to  none  in  love  of  coun- 
try, and  attachment  to  its  free  institutions,  you 
cherish  profound  veneration  for  the  high  authority 
which  Christ  established  for  the  government  of 
his  Church.  With  such  a  Prelate  at  the  head  of 
the  American  Hierarchy,  who  recommends  Reli- 
gion by  the  exercise  of  the  mild  virtues  which  it 
inspires,  we  may  hope  that  many  of  those  who  lie 
scattered  throughout  this  vast  and  flourishing 
Republic,  like   sheep  without   a  shepherd,  will 


soon  be  brought  to  the  fold  of  Jesus  Christ.  This 
is,  doubtless,  your  highest  ambition,  and  most 
earnest  prayer,  as  it  is  likewise  the  object  dearest 
to  the  heart  of  him  who,  with  veneration  and 
esteem,  subscribes  himself. 

Your  devoted  brother  in  Christ, 

t  FRANCIS  PATRICK  KENRICK, 

Bishop  of  Arath  and  Coadj.  Philadelphia. 
Philadelphia,  December  8,  1837. 


PREFACE 


The  followinor  Letters  have  been  written  in  reply 
to  the  work  which  has  recently  appeared  from  the 
pen  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  bishop  of  Ver- 
mont, in  which  "the  Church  of  Rome,  at  the  pre- 
sent day,  is  compared  with  the  Church  of  Jiome 
in  her  primitive  purity,"  and  which  is  ''addressed 
to  the  Roman  Hierarchy."  The  investiiration 
which  has  been  thus  opened  is  hii,dily  interesting, 
and  the  mode  in  which  it  is  conducted  sufficiently 
novel  to  increase  the  interest.  Thoui>h  the  early 
writers  of  the  Anglican  Church  made  free  use  of 
the  Fathers,  it  was  found  by  experience  so  difficult 
to  suit  their  testimony  to  the  doctrines  of  the  day, 
that  appeals  to  their  authority  have  become  com- 
paratively rare  in  Protestant  polemics,  l^ishop 
Hopkins  has  ventured  anew  on  ground  whence 
many  a  chaminon  of  Protestantism  had  been  forced 
to  retreat,  and  has  advanced  close  to  our  camp, 
brandishing  weapons  taken  from  our  own  armory. 
Not  confining  himself,  as  some  more  cautious  dis- 
putants, to  the  earlic^st  Fathers,  styled  Apostolic, 
he  has  extended  his  researches  to  the  nuddle  of 
the  fifth  century,  and  presented,  in  regular  array, 
a  host  of  writers,  with  aj)|)areiit  confidence  in  the 
favoural)le  character  of  their  testimony.  C^atholics 
owe  him  a  debt  of  Liralitude  for  directing  public 
attention  to  tlu^se  venerable  witnesses  of  ancient 
faith;  and   Protestants  must  feel  ilattcnd  that  so 


PREFACE. 


plausible  a  defence  of  their  principles  could  have 
been  made  by  their  ingenious  advocate.     To  in- 
spire confidence  in  his  proofs,  Bishop  Hopkins 
cited  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  in  many  instances, 
the  original  Greek  and  Latin,  and  in  some  cases 
the  received  Latin  version  of  some  Greek  Fathers. 
I  regret  to  be  obliged  to  dispute  the  fidelity  of  the 
English  translation  of  several  passages;  and  though 
I  willingly  acquit  him  of  intentional  misrepresen- 
tation of  the  meaning  of  the  text,  the  learned  reader 
will  admit,  that  it  has  been,  in  many  places,  greatly 
mistaken.  The  frequency  of  my  corrections,  which 
I  have  generally  made  in  the  notes,  may  appear 
unkind,  perhaps  pedantic;  but  the  errors  sometimes 
materially  affected  the  sense,  and  w^ere  made  the 
occasion  or  ground  of  false  argumentation.     It  is 
pleasing  to  find  that  a  desultory  mode  of  contro- 
versy has  not  been  pursued  by  Bishop  Hopkins, 
his  arguments  being  directed  almost  exclusively 
against  one  tenet  of  Catholic  faith — the  Supre- 
macy of  the  Pope.     It  is,  indeed,  to  be  regretted 
that  the  Bishop  did  not  confine  himself  to  that 
tenet,  which  would  have  fixed  attention  so  com- 
pletely on  it  that  the  reader  might  have  more 
easily  formed  his  judgment.     The  occasional  ob- 
jections introduced  against  General  Councils  have 
called  for  a  reply,  but  have  not  afforded  an  oppor- 
tunity of  a  full  development  of  the  nature  and  au- 
thority of  these  venerable  assemblies.   The  Letters, 
then,  may  be  deemed  the  vindication  of  the  Pri- 
macy alone,  though  incidentally  the  authority  of 
General   Councils   is  likewise  vindicated.      The 
main  subject  has  been  somew^hat  encumbered,  in 
the  work  of  Bishop  Hopkins,  by  the  introduction 
of  supposititious  works,  and  of  passages  having 
little  or  no  connexion  with  it:  which  render  the 
task  of  the  writer  and  reader  more  tedious  than  it 


PREFACE.  ni 

would  otherwise  have  been.  By  the  repetition  of 
assertions  of  the  same  kind  in  numberless  places, 
the  respondent  has  been  k'd  to  repeat,  with  some 
variety  of  phrase,  what  a  dilVerent  arrangement 
would  not  have  ref[uired.  The  plan,  however,  of 
the  original  work  is  somewhat  new  and  pleasing, 
and  well  calculated  for  its  end,  uniting  much  art 
vrith  apparent  simplicity.  The  style  is  that  of  a 
gentleman  and  a  scholar — and  abounds  in  profess- 
ions of  kindness — in  exhortation — in  appeals — 
and  in  prayer — but  withal  it  conceals  the  bitter- 
ness of  reproach  and  accusation.  In  the  answer, 
great  care  has  l)een  taken  to  repress  the  strong 
feeling  which  groundless  imputations  awaken — to 
temper  its  expression — and  to  sustain  truth  with- 
out violating  charity.  It  has  been  deemed  unne- 
cessary to  swell  the  book  by  giving  all  the  })assages 
in  the  original  Greek,  or  Latin,  or  in  the  Latin 
version  of  the  Greek  text,  as  most  readers  cannot 
profit  l)y  the  facility  which  it  allbrds  of  judging  of 
the  accuracy  of  the  English  version  :  but  wherever 
a  doubt  might  be  excited  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  or  a  correction  was  to  be  sustained,  or  the 
words  seemed  peculiarly  important,  they  have 
been  given  in  the  notes.  These  Letters,  wTitten 
purely  with  a  view  to  vindicate  a  divine  dogma, 
appear  without  any  ])rctensions  to  adventitious  or- 
nament; and  are  submitted  in  the  hope  that  they 
may  fall  into  the  hands  of  some  who  are  not  as 
yet  of  the  fold  of  Jesus  Christ,  Imt  whom  his  mercy 
designs  to  bring,  that  they  may  be  of  the  one  fold, 
under  the  one  Pastor. 


CONTENTS 


LETTER  I. 

Promotion  of  Christian  union.  The  Catholic  principle.  Canon  law. 
Fathers — Extent  of  their  authority.  Use  and  meaning  of  Anathema. 
Apostolic  Fathers.  Apostolic  Canons.  Apostolic  Constitutions.  Coun- 
cil of  Florence.     Pontifical  rights  and  privileges. 

LETTER  IL 

Scriptural  proofs  of  the  Primacy.  Promise  of  Christ.  Metaphor  of 
the  Rock — Of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom.  Distinction  between  Petrusand 
Petra  abandoned.  Greek  text.  Syriac  version.  Arabic,  (/haldaic. 
Bloomfield,  Bishop  Marsh,  Rosenmiiller.  In  what  sense  is  Peter  the 
foundation .'  Supposed  literary  blunder.  Vigilius.  Charge  of  Christ 
to  Peter.  Prayer  that  his  faith  may  not  fail.  Pastoral  commission.  Ar- 
nobius.  Protestant  interpretation.  Exercise  of  the  Primacy.  Elec- 
tion of  Matthias.  Chrysostom.  Council  of  Jerusalem.  Decree  of  Peter. 
Jerome,  Theodoret.  Cave.  Perpetuity  of  the  Primacy.  Peter,  Bishop 
of  Rome. 

LETTER  in. 

Objections.  Christ  the  Rock,  the  foundation.  St  Leo.  Bishop  Marsh. 
Bloomfield.  Humility  inculcated.  Domination.  Vanity.  Power  of 
forgiveness.  Peter  and  John  sent.  Peter  vindicates  himself  Paul's 
visit.  Reproof  of  Ceplias.  Order  of  the  Apostles.  Foundation  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.     St  Francis  de  Sales.     Scriptural  allusions. 

LETTER  IV. 

Spurious  Documents.  Canons  of  the  Apostles.  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions. Decretals  of  Isidore.  Sources.  Letter  of  Hormisdas.  John  of 
Constantinople. 

LETTER  V. 

Apostolic  Fathers.  Ignatius.  Roman  Church  presiding.  Clement 
of  Rome.  Letter  to  the  Corinthians.  Irenanis.  Splendid  testimony. 
More  powerful  principality.  Agreement  with  the  Roman  Ciiurch.  Pas- 
chal question.  Victor.  Threat  of  excommunication.  Ancient  usages 
Perpetuity  of  the  Roman  See.  Undying  sovereignty.  Fanciful  hypo- 
thesis.    Primitive  views.     Seat  of  ernpire. 


CONTENTS.  IX 


LETTER  VI. 


Tertiillian.  Peter  the  Rock.  Bishop  of  hishops.  Church  of  I'oter. 
Apostolic.  Keys  left  tlirouijh  I'eter  to  the  Church.  Ingenious  inter- 
pretation. Council  of  Jerusalem.  Fal>er's  acknowledgment.  SucceiiB- 
ion  to  Peter.  Montanisin.  Key  of  knowledirr.  Apostolic  Churches. 
Vindication  of  TertuUian. 


LETTER  VII. 

Clement  of  Ale.xandria.  Hypotyposcs  lost.  Fracrment  in  F^usebius 
Precedency  of  Peter.  Ancient  Church.  Unity  of  the  Church.  Figu- 
rative terms.     Gospel  of  Mark. 

LETTER  Vin. 

Origen.  Keys  of  Scripture.  Mystical  interpretation.  Privileges  of 
all  the  Apostles.  Moral  application.  Gates  of  hell  powerless  against 
the  Rock  and  Church.  Heterodox.  Connexion  not  iinine(jiat<'.  Claims 
of  the  episcopacy.  Capricious  exercise  of  power.  On  Pet«'r  the  Church 
is  built.  To  him  supreme  power  is  given.  Visit  to  Rome.  Profession 
of  faith. 

LETTER  IX. 

St  Cyprian.  One  Church.  One  Chair.  Communion  with  Corne- 
lius, tliat  is,  with  the  Catholic  Church.  Authority  of  the  Roman 
Church.  Pl.ice  of  I'cter.  Pag.iti  eiii|Mror  jealous  of  the  Roman  Bishop. 
Acknowlednment  of  Bishop  Hopkins.  Iluman  church.  Liberty  of 
bishops.  Scliismatics.  Letter  to  Cornelius.  One  Bishop.  One  Judge. 
Preventive  of  heresy  and  schism.  Peter  speaks  for  all.  .M.ijesty  of  the 
Church.  Roman  faith  inaccessible  to  perfidy.  Appeals  to  Rome.  Right 
not  questioned.  Root  and  parent  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Power  to 
depose  bishops.  Unity  of  the  Episcopate  and  Church.  Peter  its  Guar- 
dian. Letter  to  Quintus.  Doubt  raised  as  to  the  genuine  character  of 
the  writings  on  baptism.  Incorrect  translations.  St  Gregory  the  Great. 
Mutual  appellations.     Greatness  of  Home. 

LETTER  X. 

Controversy  concerning  baptism.  Narrative  of  St  Vincent  of  Lerins. 
Zeal  of  the  Apostolic  See.  No  innovation.  Cyprian  not  mentioned. 
Plea  for  liim  by  St  Augustin.  Kusebius.  St  Jerome.  F'irmilian.  Ad- 
missif)n  of  the  superiority  f)f  Stephen.  Cause  of  excited  feeling.^  Abuse 
of  authority.  Political  illustration.  Supposed  submission  of  Cyprian. 
Victor  and  Stephen  sustained  by  councils.     Example  of  Cyprian 

LETTER  XI. 

Lactantius.  Catholic  Church.  Kusebius.  Circumstantial  evidence 
Paul  preceded  all  the  Christian  apologists.  Silence  of  Mark.^  Pet<*r 
the  first— the  most  powerful  and  the  great.'st  of  the  Apostles.  Fanciful 
interpretation  of  this  testimony.    The  priniacy  of  a  skilful  lawyer.    Chair 


X  CONTENTS. 

of  Peter.  Roman  Bishop  successor  of  Peter.  Paschal  controversy. 
Remonstrance  of  Irenaeus.  Letter  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria.  Coun- 
cil of  Antioch.  Ancient  discipHne.  Reference  by  Aurelian  to  the 
bishops  of  Italy  and  Rome.  Letter  of  Constantine.  Judgment  of  Mel- 
chiades.  Council  of  Aries.  New  trial  unnecessary.  History  of  Euse- 
bius.     Offensive  language  of  Bishop  Hopkins. 

LETTER  XIL 

General  Councils.  PontiiTs  right  of  convocation.  Of  presiding.  Dis- 
tinction between  doctrine  and  discipline.  Council  of  Nice  summoned 
by  Constantine,  with  the  assent  of  Sylvester.  Address  of  Constantine. 
Untimely  introduction  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  Imperial  convoca- 
tion not  suited  to  the  divided  state  of  Christendom.  Letter  of  the  orien- 
tal bishops  to  Damasus.  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon.  Osius 
of  Cordova.  Order  of  Councils.  Council  of  Constantinople.  Unjust 
reproach  by  Bishop  Hopkins.  St  Cyril  presiding  by  commission  of  Ce- 
lestine.  Second  Council  of  Constantinople.  Assertion  of  Bishop  Hop- 
kins refuted.  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Presidency  of  the  emperor. 
Western  Councils.     Right  of  confirmation. 

LETTER  XHL 

Nicene  Canons.  Sixth  Canon.  Metropolitical  rights.  Patriarchates. 
Primacy.  Proceedings  at  Chalcedon.  Exceptionable  authority  of  Ques- 
nel.     Modification  of  ancient  legislation. 

LETTER  XIV. 

St  Athanasius.  Mode  of  defending  Councils.  Authority  of  the  Ni- 
cene Council.  False  Councils  of  Arians.  Nicene  definition  unchangea- 
ble. Imaginary  contrast.  Real  harmony  of  doctrine.  Testimony  of 
Bishop  Bull.  Of  Saywell.  Regard  for  the  Holy  See.  Efforts  of  the 
Eusebians.  Synod  summoned  by  Julius.  Athanasius  acquitted.  Judg- 
ment of  Julius.  Historical  facts.  Eusebians  acknowledge  the  pre-emi- 
nence of  the  Roman  Church.  Literary  criticism  of  Bishop  Hopkins. 
Judicial  forms.  Reversal  of  sentence.  Letter  of  Julius.  Splendid  evi- 
dence of  the  Primacy.  Council  of  Sardica.  Testimony  to  the  Primacy. 
Titles.  Bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Liberius.  Pseudo-Athanasius. 
Letter  of  Pope  Agatho.     Acknowledgment  of  Whitaker. 

LETTER  XV. 

St  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  False  translation.  Peter  the  most  eminent. 
The  Prince  of  the  Apostles.  Power  of  the  keys.  Overthrow  of  Simon 
Magus.  Primacy  of  jurisdiction.  Irrelevant  texts.  Translator  of  Cyril. 
Catholic  Church.     Shameful  insinuation. 


LETTER  XVI. 

St  Hilary  of  Poictiers.  The  Church  built  on  Simon  Peter.  Power 
of  the  keys.  Faith  of  Peter.  A  rian  heresy.  Literary  criticism.  Apos- 
trophe to  Peter.  Epitliets.  Polity  of  the  Church.  Sense  of  Scripture. 
Strong  foundation.     Bishop  Pearson. 


CON  TK  NTS. 


LETTER  XV 11. 


St  Basil  the  Groat.  l\'ter  the  foundation.  Prayer  for  the  I'atriarch. 
Diptychs.  Order  of  tile  Church.  Peter  preferred  Received  tin- keys. 
Letters  to  Athanasius.  Implores  tlie  autliority  of  tlic  Roman  Rinliop. 
Signal  fact.  Eustatiiius  restored  hy  Liherius.  Roman  Chureli  mother 
of  all  cliurchea.     Baptism  administered  by  heretics.     Nicene  Council. 

LETTER  XVI II. 

St  GrejTory  of  Nazianzum.  Peter  called  a  rock,  and  entrusted  with 
the  fountiations  of  the  Church.  False  translation  and  false  readinjj. 
Mistake  of  Rishop  Hopkins.  Virtues  of  the  elder  CJreirory.  Ri.shopof 
the  Catholic  Church.    Hackneyed  objection.    Unity  of  faith.    Councils. 

LETTER  XIX. 

St  Ambrose.  Where  Peter  is,  there  is  the  Church.  Faith  of  Peter. 
He  is  called  a  rock,  and  made  the  strength  of  the  (Church.  Received  a 
kingdom  from  Christ.  Moral  application.  Peter  Bishop  of  the  Roman 
Church.  Powers  common  to  the  Apostles.  Peculiar  |)reroirative  of 
Peter.  Unity  of  action  in  the  three  Divine  Persons.  Unfair  use  of  iso- 
lated expressions.  Equality  of  merit  in  Peter  and  Paul.  Peter  the  foun- 
dation. Pastoral  commission.  Vicar  of  Christ.  Pious  usage.  Council 
ofAquileiat  Record  of  trial.  Splendid  testimony.  Council  of  Capua. 
Satirus. 

LETTER  XX. 

St  Jerome.  Letter  to  Damasus.  Chair  of  Peter.  Communion  with 
Damasus.  Letter  to  Evagrius.  Equality  of  the  Episcopal  character. 
Peter  the  foundation.  Abuse  of  the  power  of  the  keys.  Confession. 
City  of  Rome.  Local  usages.  Jerome's  motives  and  sentiments.  Ex- 
hortation to  Demetrias.  Roman  faith.  Adoption  of  Jerome's  senti 
raents. 

LETTER  XXI. 

St  Augustin.  Hesitancy  ns  to  the  rock.  Bishops  Pearson  and  Beve- 
ridge.  l*rincipality  of  the  Apostleship.  Allegorical  interpretation.  Pri- 
macy of  Peter.  Excellence  of  Peter.  First  among  the  A[)ostles.  In  him 
unity  is  commended.  Catholicity  of  the  Church.  Roman  Church. 
Apostolic  Chair.  Letter  tr)  Hesychius.  Misrepresentation  of  its  mean- 
ing. Roman  usages.  Doctrinal  tribunal.  Acknowledgment  of  Casau- 
bon.     African  Councils.     Authority  of  ihe  Holy  See. 

LETTER  XXII. 

St  Chrysostom.  Peter  Prince  of  the  Apostles.  (Diarge  given  to  him 
and  his  successors.  Power  of  binding  and  loosinjr.  Commission  to  feed 
the  sheep.  Peter  the  head  of  the  .\postlc8.  On  him  the  Churrli  is  bjiMt 
Divinity  of  Christ  proved  by  his  gif\s  and  promises  to  Peti'r.  Petit 
placed  over  tiie  worM.  Doctor  of  the  whole  world.  Rock  of  faith.  Ap- 
peal of  Chrysostom  to  Innocent. 


Xll  CONTENTS. 


LETTER  XXllI. 


St  Isidore  of  Pelusium.  Confession  of  Peter.  Church  not  to  be  over- 
thrown. St  Prosper  of  Aquitaine.  Authority  of  the  ApostoHc  See. 
Condemnation  of  the  Pehio^ians.  E.xtraord  nary  assertion  of  Bishop 
Hopkins.  Vincent  of  Lerins.  Pope  Stephen.  Ri^me  head  of  the 
world.  Rule  for  Scriptural  interpretation.  Catholics  follow  it.  Bishop 
Pearson  and  Archbishop  Potter.  Primacy  always,  every  where,  by 
ALL  admitted. 

LETTER  XXIV. 

General  testimonies.  St  James  of  Nisibis.  St  Epiphanius.  St  Gregory 
of  Nyssa.  St  Asterius  of  Amasea.  St  Optatus  of  Mela.  St  Cyril  of 
Alexandria.  St  Peter  Chrysologus.  Council  of  Ephesus.  Of  Chalcedon. 

LETTER  XXV. 

Interpolation  of  the  Fathers.  Jansenist  Quesnel.  Unjust  charge. 
Retort.     Vigilius  of  Thapsis.     St  Maximus  of  Turin. 

LETTER  XXVI. 

Claims  of  the  primitive  Roman  Church.  Admission  of  Hallam.  Si- 
ricius,  Innocent,  Zosimus,  Leo.     Council  of  Sardica. 

LETTER  XXVII. 

Temporal  power.  Profession  of  faith.  Sir  Edward  Sandys.  Gre- 
gory VII.  Condition  and  compact.  American  independence.  Depo- 
sition by  Innocent  IV.  Public  opinion.  Benefits  of  Papal  power.  Fo- 
reign Quarterly  and  London  Quarterly  Reviews.  Southey.  Third 
canon  of  Latran.  Council  of  Trent.  Council  of  Florence.  French  de- 
claration. Opinions.  Disclaimers  of  temporal  claims.  German  empire. 
False  construction.  Offensive  assertion.  General  character  of  Pontifical 
authority. 

LETTER  XXVIII. 

Mode  of  election.  Ancient  form.  Modifications.  Coronation  of  the 
Pope.     Electors.     Mistakes  of  Bishop  Hopkins. 

LETTER  XXIX. 

Catholic  Church.  Ancient  respect  for  Papal  authority.  Questions 
answered.  St  Cyprian  on  Unity.  Jerome.  Optatus.  Obedience  to 
Pope.  Creed  of  Pope  Pius.  Ancient  rites.  Anathema.  Council  of 
Constantinople.  Choice  of  words.  Unjust  accusations.  Infallibility. 
Failing  and  falling.  Prayer  of  Christ.  St  Leo.  Plan  of  reunion.  In- 
fluQUce  of  government.  Groundless  assertions.  Ascendancy.  Spiritual 
triumph.     Friendly  discussion.    Exhortation. 


INTRODUCTORY   LETTER. 
ON  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

Your  recent  work,  "  addressed  to  the  Roman  Hierarchy" 
and  dedicated  "  to  the  cause  of  Catholic  unity,"  has  been  read 
by  me  with  no  small  degree  of  interest  and  attention.  As  one 
of  the  body  addressed,  which  you  are  pleased  to  designate  "  nu- 
merous, powerful,  and  august,"  I  could  not  be  insensible  to 
your  very  solemn  appeal  on  a  subject  involving  our  eternal 
interests,  and  those  of  the  millions  over  whom  we  watch,  being 
to  render  an  account  for  their  inunortal  souls :  as  a  friend 
to  Catholic  unity,  I  hail  every  overture  for  reconciliation 
coming  from  the  highly  respectable  and  influential  body  to 
which  you  belong.  In  the  perusal  of  your  work,  I  have  been 
afforded  great  gratification,  no  less  by  the  method  which  you 
have  adopted,  and  which,  if  constantly  followed,  must  lead  to 
the  end  we  both  have  in  view,  than  by  the  treasure  of  testimo- 
nies which  it  contains,  regarding  the  rights  of  the  apostolic  see, 
which  cannot  be  too  highly  valued.  Some  inaccuracies,  how- 
ever, have  escaped  you,  which  I  feel  warranted  in  pointing  out, 
although  perfectly  aware  of  the  delicacy  of  the  task,  and  of  the 
responsibility  incurred  by  anticipating  my  more  experienced 
and  more  competent  colleagues.  I  rely,  however,  on  your 
indulgence,  and  on  theirs,  and  only  plead  sirjcere  zeal  for 
the  cause  of  Catholic  unity. 

You  commence  by  stating  that  the  principle  on  which  you 
proceed  is  our  own  principle  ;  and,  by  way  of  explanation,  you 
add,  that  you  should  make  your  appeal  in  every  case  to  the 


14  ON  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES. 

authorities  sanctioned  by  our  own  canon  law.  The  use  of  such 
documents  as  have  the  sanction  of  the  Church  is  certainly 
allowable,  provided,  however,  they  receive  only  that  degree  of 
authority  which  she  ascribes  to  them  :  but  as  the  body  of  canon 
law — especially  that  part  styled  the  decree  of  Gratian — has  re- 
ceived no  solemn  sanction,  no  weight  can  be  given  to  passages 
extracted  from  it,  beyond  what  the  document  to  which  it  refers 
may  possess  intrinsically,  or  derive  from  the  usage  of  the 
Church.* 

According  to  Gibert,  whom  you  quote,  and  to  whose  posi- 
tion I  willingly  assent,  the  holy  scriptures  are  the  fountain  of 
law,  both  as  to  faith  and  morals,  when  expounded  by  compe- 
tent authority,  not  by  private  interpretation,  in  accordance  with 
that  faith  which  was  originally  delivered  to  the  saints.  From 
it,  he  adds,  we  learn  the  necessity,  utility  and  form  of  councils  ; 
the  model  of  which  is  found  in  the  council  of  Jerusalem,  whose 
proceedings  are  recorded  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  General  councils  are  placed  by  him  next;  and 
passing  over  the  Pontifical  decrees,  which  form  a  great  portion 
of  the  canon  law,  he  gives  us  a  list  of  Fathers  mentioned  with 
approbation  in  a  decree  of  a  Roman  synod,  held  towards  the 
close  of  the  fifth  century.  St  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage, 
and  martyr,  is  the  first  on  this  list ;  and  it  is  said,  in  the  origi- 
nal decree,  that  his  works  are  to  be  received  in  all  things:! 
yet  as  among  his  reputed  works  are  some  J  in  defence  of  what 
is  now  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  an  error, — the  invalidity  of 
baptism  administered  by  heretics, — we  must  suppose  that  these 
were  rejected  as  supposititious,  or  that  this  general  phrase  ad- 
mits a  certain  latitude  of  signification.  Although  St  Augustin 
was  an  ardent  admirer  of  the  great  bishop  of  Carthage,  he 

*     See  Devoti  institut.  Juris  Can.  1.  I,  §  79. 

t  "  In  omnibus  recipienda."  Cone.  Rom.  §  iv.  torn.  11.  Cone.  Hard. 
Col.  939. 

X  Some  learned  men  in  Germany,  and  elsewhere,  strongly  contena 
that  these  are  not  genuine.  See  Binterin's  excellent  work  on  the  disci- 
pline of  the  Church  in  the  early,  middle,  and  late  ages. 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  15 

avowed  his  perfect  freedom  as  lo  such  opinions  as  were  not  in 
harmony  with  Scripture, "^  and  expressly  rejected  those  ascrib- 
ed lo  him  against  the  validity  of  such  baptism  ;  *♦  I  do  not  ad- 
mit, I  say,  the  opinion  of  blessed  Cyprian  concerning  the  bap- 
tizing of  heretics  and  schismatics,  because  the  Church  does  not 
admit  it,  for  which  blessed  Cyprian  shed  his  blood. "t  As  you, 
Right  Reverend  Sir,  desire  to  proceed  on  our  principles,  I  beg 
of  you  to  notice,  that  the  general  approbation  of  the  works  of 
any  individual  father  does  not  imply  a  solemn  sanction  of  every 
thing  that  may  be  contained  in  his  writings.  The  Church  re- 
gards the  Fathers  as  witnesses  of  ancient  faith  and  tradition, 
wherever  they  unanimously  declare  or  vindicate  some  doctrine ; 
but,  as  the  enlightened  bishop  of  Hippo  remarked,  in  re- 
gard to  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  she  does  not  consider  their 
works  as  canonical  and  divine.J  Thougli  their  testimony  be 
worthy  of  credit,  and  their  individual  sentiments  should  be  treat- 
ed with  respect,  on  account  of  their  learning,  piety,  and  their 
connexion  with  tlie  primitive  church,  yet  Catholic  principles 
necessarily  free  us  from  the  yoke  of  individual  authority,  and 
subject  our  intellect  to  Christ  alone,  speaking  by  the  tribunals 
which  He  has  established  in  his  Church. 

In  the  list  which  you  give,  as  taken  from  Gibert,  and  found 
in  the  canon  law,  you  represent  as  "  accursed,  whoever  does 
not  embrace  the  letter  of  the  blessed  Leo  to  Flavian,  the 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  even  to  a  tittle."  Instead  of  the  awe- 
inspiring  word  "accursed,"  I  could  wish  that  you  had  retained 
the  simple  "anathema"  of  the  original,  and  left  your  readers 
to  learn  its  meaning  from  some  one  who  might  give  it  tKe  less 
odious, but  more  correct,  interpretation,  of  "separation  from  the 
Church  of  Christ."  Baron  de  Starck,  a  professed  Lutheran  min- 
ister, thoiigh  almost  a  Catholic  in  sentiment — perhaps  in  the  end 
entirely  Catholic,  in  liis  profound  essay  on  the  reunion  of  the 

*     S.  Aug.  I.  11.  contra  Cresconiuin,  c.  3'J.     "  Quod  aulcm  iion  con- 
gruit  cum  pace  ejus  rcspuo." 
t      Ibid. 
X     S.  Aug.  1.  II.  contra  ('n>sc(»iiiiun,  r.  32.  also  Epist.  1 1  1 


16  ON  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES. 

Christian  Churches,  gives  the  obnoxious  word  this  milder  signifi- 
cation.* For  the  present,  I  will  state  why  so  great  a  penalty  as 
exclusion  from  the  Church  of  Christ  was  decreed  against  such 
as  would  not  receive  unreservedly  this  Epistle  of  Pope  Leo, 
whilst  no  such  sanction  is  given  to  the  rest  of  his  admirably 
writings,  or  to  those  of  the  other  Fathers  whose  names  are  men- 
tioned. That  epistle  was  a  solemn  exposition  of  the  faith  of 
the  Church  on  the  adorable  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  which 
was  then  assailed  by  Eutyches,  who  denied  the  distinction  of 
the  two  natures  of  God  and  man  in  our  Redeemer  Jesus  Christ. 
It  was  read  publicly  in  the  great  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and 
the  assembled  prelates  of  the  Catholic  world  hailed  it  as  the 
voice  of  Peter  speaking  by  the  mouth  of  Leo.  Anathemas  re- 
sounded throughout  that  venerable  assembly  against  all  who 
did  not  hold  the  faith  of  the  Fathers,  so  correctly  and  solemnly 
declared  by  the  successor  of  Peter.  Before  quitting  this  sub- 
ject, it  may  be  well  to  remind  you  that  this  '*  anathema"  is 
borrowed  from  St  Paul :  "  Though  we,  or  an  angel  from  hea- 
ven, preach  a  gospel  beside  that  which  we  have  preached  to 
you,  LET  HIM  BE  ANATHEMA.  As  I  Said  bcforc,  SO  I  Say  now 
again,  If  any  one  preach  to  you  a  gospel  besides  that  which 
you  have  received,  let  him  be  anathema."! 

Besides  the  works  of  the  Fathers  specified  in  the  list  which 
you  give,  you  use  others,  mentioned  with  commendation  by 
St  Jerom,  to  whose  discrimination  and  judgment  great  defer- 
ence is  deservedly  manifested,  without  any  prejudice,  howev- 
er, to  our  liberty  of  respectful  dissent,  wherever  it  is  not  corro- 
borated by  the  positive  sanction  of  the  Church.  With  regard 
to  the  works  of  minor  character  which  you  use,  such  as  Pi- 
card,  Gibert,  Tuberville's  Catechism,  Butler's  "Book  of  the 
Church,"  I  can  have  no  objection  that  you  should  use  them 

*     ''  L'anatheme  n'emporte  point  un  jugement  de  damnation."  P.  415. 

"  Cette  sentence  ne  designe  pas  une  excommunication  reunie  aux  ma- 
ledictions." P.  421.  Entretiens  Philosophiques  traduits  de  I'allemand. 
2d  ed.  Paris,  1821. 

t     Gal.  i.   8,  9. 


SPURIOUS  WORKS.  17 

for  the  elucidation  of  any  point  in  dispute  ;  alilioufrh  they  do 
not  possess  such  wei«,dit  of  autliority  as  could  make  liieir  testi- 
mony conclusive.  In  an  investigation  of  this  kind,  the  highest 
authorities  only  should  iiave  been  selected. 

WJien  noticing  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  I  regret 
that  you  have  introduced  the  "  Apostolic  Canons,"  and  "  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions,"  for,  as  all  the  learned  agree    that 
these  latter  collections  are  not  the  genuine  works  of  the  Apostles, 
reference  to  them  is  calculated  unnecessarily  to  incumber  and 
embarrass  the  controversy.     Truth,  as  it  was  anciently  deliv- 
ered and  professed,  being  your  object,  you  should  have,  at  once, 
set  aside  all  documents  of  a  questionable  character,  and  still 
more  those  which  are  known  to  be  supposititious.     The  same 
consideration  should  have  determined  you  to  leave  unnoticed  all 
such  works  as,  in  passing  through  the  ordeal  of  criticism,  have 
not   stood    the  application  of   its  legitimate   tests ;    such    are 
eome  works  falsely  ascribed  to  the  Fathers,  and  the  decretals 
attributed  by  Isidore  to  the  Popes  of  tiie  first  three  centuries. 
This  would  have  preserved  you  from  the  temptation  of  express- 
ing yourself  in  a  manner  that  might  be  thought  offensive,  and, 
consequently,  inconsistent  as  well  with  the  very  kind  profess- 
ions with  which  your  letters  abound,  as  with  the  altainnient  of 
ihat  end  you  have  so  much  at  heart.     It  would  have  left  the 
sincerity  of  your  search  after  truth  beyond  the  reach  even  of 
suspicion  ;   whilst  the  introduction  of  these  literary  forgeries 
may  be  thought  designed  to  convey  the  false  impression  that 
they  were  contrived  by  the  advocates  of  the  primacy  to  supply 
the  want  of  better  evidence.    This  course  would  have  afforded 
the  reader  greater  facility  in  judging  of  the  real  merits  of  the 
case,  by  concentrating  his  attention  on  documents  of  unques- 
tionable authenticity,  whose  weight  may  now  be  diminislicd, 
in  his  mind,  from  the  connexion  with  false  and  forged  testimo- 
nies, which  you  likewise  bring  forward.  For  this  I  cannot  give 
you  praise. 

Instead  of  staling  our  belief  on  the  primacy  of  the  Apostolic 
See  in  your  words,  or  in  those  of  Tuberville,  I  beg  to  sul)mii 


18  ON  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES. 

the  definition  of  the  General  Council  of  Florence  :  "  We  define 
that  the  holy  Apostolic  See  and  Roman  Pontiffhasthe  primacy 
throughout  the  entire  world,  and  that  the  said  Roman  Pontiff 
is  the  successor  of  blessed  Peter,  the  prince  of  the  apostles, 
and  the  true  Vicar  of  Christ,  and  the  head  of  the  entire 
Church,  and  the  father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians  ;  and  that 
to  him,  in  the  person  of  blessed  Peter,  full  power  was  given 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  feed,  rule  and  govern  the  Uni- 
versal Church;  as  is  even  contained  in  the  acts  of  (Ecumenical 
Councils,  and  in  the  Sacred  Canons."*  With  this  strong 
expression  of  the  power  and  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See 
before  us,  we  can  easily  dispense  with  the  explanations  of 
TuberviUe's  Catechism,  and  with  the  passages  which  you 
quote  as  extracts  from  the  Canon  law.  You  seem  to  have 
borrowed  them  from  Gibert,  to  whose  works  you  refer ;  but 
as  these  are  not  now  within  my  reach,  I  cannot  ascertain  the 
sources  whence  he  has  derived  them.  I  shall  observe,  how- 
ever, that  the  pompous  phrases  in  which  the  Pontifical  au- 
thority may  be  occasionally  expressed,  are  not  the  fair  criterion 
of  its  character,  which  must  be  ascertained  by  the  solemn  and 
deliberate  definition  of  the  Church,  such  as  that  of  the  Fathers 
of  Florence.  To  adduce  one  instance,  you  quote  a  passage 
which  you  thus  translate  : — "  The  Roman  Pontiflf  bears  the 
authority  not  of  a  mere  man,  but  of  the  true  God  upon  the 
earth. "t  Some  one  might  imagine  that  the  Pope  was  here 
held  up  as  the  true  God  ;  whilst  the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
text  is,  that  he  acts  as  vicegerent  not  of  a  mere  man,  but  of 
the  true  God, — our  Lord  and  Redeemer  Jesus  Christ.  The 
various  privileges  or  rights  ascribed  to  him  should  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  primacy  itself,  since,  as  you  yourself  after- 
wards state,  a  diversity  of  opinion  exists  among  Catholics 
themselves  as  to  the   extent  of  his  prerogative,  though  the 

*  Cone.  Flor.  Collat.  22,  p.  985.  T.  ix.  Edit.  Paris,  1714.  Cone.  Col. 
Hard. 

t  "  Romanus  Pontifex  non  puri  hominis ;  sed  veri  Dei  vieera  gerit 
in  terris."     Gibert,  torn.  2.  p.  U. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PRIMACY.  19 

divine  institution  of  the  primary  is  admitted  by  nil.  Those 
who  seriously  desire  unity,  should  carefully  distinguish  be- 
tween the  defined  doctrines  of  failii,  in  which  all  harmonize, 
and  those  opinions  which  are  tolerated  by  the  Church.  If  we 
could  agree  on  the  doctrine,  we  might,  at  our  leisure,  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Church  herself,  consider  the  weight  of  authority 
which  may  sustain  each  sentiment,  and  adopt  or  reject  it  as 
our  enlightened  judgment  would  dictate.  I  recollect  a  very 
interesting  essay  for  Catholic  communion  written  by  a  minister 
of  the  church  of  England,  in  which  was  stated,  with  great 
candour  and  accuracy,  what  Catholic  faith  essentially  de- 
manded, and  how  far  Anglican  divines  had  advanced  on  each 
disputed  point.  The  difference  between  us  appeared  very 
small,  when  the  concessions  made  by  your  divines  were  placed 
at  the  side  of  the  Catholic  tenet.  With  a  similar  view  the 
great  Bossuet  composed  his  simple  but  profound  exposition  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  church  on  matters  of  controversy. 
In  the  same  spirit  I  beg  to  state,  that  it  is  my  design  to  main- 
tain the  doctrine  and  faith  of  the  Catholic  church  on  the 
primacy,  without  entering  into  the  vindication  of  any  disputa- 
ble claim  :  and  if  the  authorities  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
bring  forward,  or  the  expressions  which  I  may  use,  should  go 
beyond  these  limits,  I  shall  not  be  supposed  to  urge  any 
thing  questionable,  as  a  condition  for  Catholic  communion. 
The  primacy  which  I  mean  to  defend  is  the  Spiritual  Presi- 
dency of  the  Church  of  God,*  established  by  Jesus  Christ,  for 
the  maintenance  of  faith  in  its  integrity,  for  the  good  order  and 
government  of  the  church  in  things  spiritual,  and  for  all  that 
appertains  to  eternal  salvation.  Could  I  indulge  the  hope  of 
inducing  you.  Right  Reverend  Sir,  to  recognise  this  Catholic 
dogma,  as  one  plainly  delivered  in  the  Scriptures,  acknowledged 
by  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  solemnly  admitted  and  declared 

*  I  borrow  the  phrase  from  St  Chrysostom,  who  says  that  Christ  gave 
to  Peter  "  the  presidency  of  the  Church  in  tiie  whole  world:" — "per 
totum  orbem  lerraruin  ccclesio;  proesidentiam  tradidit."  Ad  pop.  An- 
tioch.  horn.  bO  de  pcenil. 


20  ON  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES. 

by  the  General  Councils  of  the  bishops  of  the  Christian  world, 
I  should  undertake  my  present  task  with  alacrity  and  joy. 
But  deep  and  strong  as  is  my  own  conviction  and  faith  on  this 
subject,  I  know,  like  Augustine,  how  difficult  it  is  to  rid 
oneself  of  false  opinions  imbibed  in  infancy — and  which  too 
frequently  grow  with  our  growth  and  strengthen  with  our 
strength.^  Still  I  enter  on  the  work  as  a  duty  which  I  owe  to 
truth — to  the  Apostolic  See — to  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 
May  his  Spirit  guide  my  pen,  and  prepare  our  hearts  for  the 
influence  of  his  grace. 

-     Aug.  I.  2,  de  civ.  Dei.  c.  1.  Tom.  III.  1.  7,  p.  31. 


LETTER  IT. 


SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 


Right  Reverend  Sir: 

Your  fourth  chapter  commences  the  important  investigation 
of  the  claims  of  tlie  Cliurcli  of  Rome,  to  what  you,  somewhat 
ambiguously,  call  "  universal  dominion,"  but  which  would 
more  correctly  be  termed,  Ijer  claim  to  authority  in  defining  the 
doctrines  of  faith,  and  in  maintaining  religious  unity.  You 
quote  the  celebrated  passage  of  St  Matthew,  in  whicli  Catho- 
lics believe  Christ  promised  this  authority  to  Peter,  who  died 
bishop  of  Rome.  The  occasion  on  whicli  the  words  were 
spoken  must  be  remembered,  in  order  to  perceive  their  full 
force.  Christ  had  asked  tlie  Apostles  what  opinions  were  en- 
tertained of  him,  and  had  been  told  by  them  that  some  said  he 
was  John  the  Baptist,  others  Elias,  some  Jeremias,  or  one  of 
the  prophets.  He  then  asked,  who  they  themselves  believed 
him  to  be.  Peter  stood  forward  and  said  :  "  Thou  art  Clirist, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God."*  He  alone  speaks,  and  to  him 
alone  the  Redeemer  addresses  his  reply.  "  Blessed  art  thou, 
Simon  Bar-Iona ;  because  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it 
to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  to  thee, 
that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church, 
and  tlie  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give 
to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou 
shah  bind  on  earth  shalt  be  bound  also  in  heaven,  and  whatso- 
ever tliou  shalt  loose  upon  earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven." 
Peter's  confession  of  faith  is  declared  to  be  divinely  inspired, 
and  on  account  of  it  he   is  pronounced  blessed.     His  name  is 

•    Matt.  xvi.  IG. 


28  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

changed ;  the  son  of  lona  is  henceforth  to  be  called  Cephas,  a 
Syriac  word,*  which  in  Greek  is  rendered  Petros,  in  English, 
a  rock.t  As  Jacob  was  called  Israel,  because  in  the  mysteri- 
rious  conflict  he  prevailed  over  the  angel  of  God ; — as  Abratn 
was  called  Abraham,  because  chosen  to  be  the  father  of  a  count- 
less multitude; — so  Simon  is  called  Cephas  or  Peter,  because 
made  by  divine  grace  a  rock  of  faith.  Nor  is  the  firmness  of 
his  faith  a  mere  personal  endowment;  he  is  to  become  the 
foundation-stone  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  That  Church  is  the 
house  the  wise  man  built  upon  a  rock.  Christ  Jesus  is  the 
architect :  Peter  is  placed  by  Him  as  the  foundation  :  the  build- 
ing is  to  be  raised  by  the  power  of  the  divine  Founder,  and, 
owing  to  the  immovable  nature  of  the  foundation,  is  to  be  so 
solid,  so  compact  in  its  parts,  that  waves  and  winds  may  dash 
against  it,  but  cannot  overthrow  it.  Time  cannot  crumble  it 
into  dust ;  no  engine  of  human  power  can  raze  it ;  hell  itself  is 
powerless  against  it.  Peter  is  to  it  what  a  strong  foundation  is 
to  a  vast  building, — its  strength,  its  necessary  and  permanent 
support.  Take  away  the  foundation,  and  the  building  tumbles 
to  the  ground.  He  is,  then,  not  merely  the  first  to  profess  aloud 
the  divinity  of  his  master,  nor  merely  the  first  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  Jews  and  Gentiles,  but  he  is  the  rock  on  which  the 
Church  rests,  and  with  which  it  is  inseparably  united. 

To  this  striking  and  expressive  figure,  Christ  adds  another, 
still  more  clearly  designating  the  governing  and  supreme  power 
which  he  determined  to  impart  to  Peter.  The  keys  of  the 
palace,  or  of  the  gates  of  the  royal  city,  were  the  known  em- 
blems of  power  and  authority.."}:     Christ  promises  to  give  him 

^     Kiplia,  the  Greeks  write  KtitpAi. 

t  In  three  Arabic  versions  he  is  styled  the  rock  :  the  definite  article 
being  prefixed :  thou  art  the  rock.     See  Ecchellensis,  par.  2.  p.  195. 

X  Isaiah  xxii.  22.  "  I  will  lay  the  key  of  the  house  of  David  upon  his 
shoulder;  and  he  shall  open,  and  none  shall  shut:  and  he  shall  shut,  and 
none  shall  open."  This  is  said  of  Eliacim,  who  was  to  be  substituted  to 
Sobna  in  the  high  priesthood.  Of  Christ  the  same  prophet  foretells  : 
"the  government  is  upon  his  shoulder,"  Is.  ix.  6;  making  an  allusion  to 
the  manner  of  carrying  the  keys. 


PROMISE  OF  THE  PRIMACY.  23 

the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  lieavcn,  whicli,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, means  eillier  tlie  (.'hurcli  of  G'oil  on  earth,  or  llie  celes- 
tial kingdom  itself.  To  Peter,  then,  was  promised  the  govern- 
ing power  in  the  Church, — the  power  of  opening  heaven  itself 
to  man.  His  relation  to  the  (Jhurch  is  to  be  one  of  power  and 
authority.  Whatsoever  he  shall  loose  upon  earth,  either  by 
unfolding  the  dilhculties  of  the  law,  as  that  phrase  sometimes 
was  understood  among  the  Jews,  or  by  remitting  the  oflences 
of  the  penitent,  as  the  collation  of  the  power  of  forgiveness  ma- 
nifests, shall  be  also  loosed  in  heaven:  whatsoever  he  shall 
bind  on  earth,  by  his  authoritative  definition  and  decree,  shall 
be  also  bound  in  heaven.  This  surely  conveys  the  idea  of  the 
liighest  degree  of  power  which  Christ  could  communicate  for 
our  instruction,  government,  and  salvation.  The  promise  is 
made  to  him  distinctly,  and  that  on  account  of  his  glorious  con- 
fession, and  the  privileges  and  power  which  it  indicates  are  con- 
sequently to  belong  to  him.  Christ  afterwards,  indeed,  promised 
to  all  the  apostles  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing :  still  what 
was  promised  in  common  to  all,  must  be  acknowledged  peculiarly 
and  pre-eminently  to  have  been  promised  to  Peter, — else  why 
was  it  that  he  received  in  particular  what  in  common  with  his 
fellow  Apostles  he  would  equally  have  got  ?  Surely  it  was 
not  without  the  special  view  of  marking  his  high  authority  and 
essential  relation  to  the  Church,  that  he  alone  was  declared  its 
fundamental  rock — its  ruler,  bearing  the  keys  of  this  heavenly 
kingdom.* 

I  am  surprised  to  find  you.  Right  Reverend  Sir,  endeavouring 
to  weaken  what  appears  to  me  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words 
"upon  this  rock,"  by  referring  to  the  diilerent  words,  almost 
similar  in  sound  and  signification,  by  which  Peter  and  the  rock 
are  expressed  in  the  Greek  text.    Still  more  am  1  astonished  at 

"  "  As  to  tlio  expression  *  the  keys,'  it  may  also  refer  to  the  power  and 
autljorily  for  tlie  said  work;  especially  aa  a  key  was  anciently  an  usual 
8ynil>ol  of  authority,  and  presentinfr  with  a  key  was  a  common  form  of 
invfstiniT  with  authority,  insomuch  that  it  was  afterwards  worn  as  a 
bad^e  of  ollice.  "  liluomfield,  a  learned  Protestant  commentator,  on  tJiis 
text. 


24  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

your  objection  to  profit  by  the  aid  which  the  language  spoken 
by  our  Lord  affords  for  the  elucidation  of  this  passage.  Its 
meaning  is,  indeed,  equally  clear  in  the  Greek,  and  in  our  own 
language ;  but  as  the  genius  of  the  Greek  induced  a  slight  va- 
riety in  the  terms,  and  as  the  English  does  not  at  all  present 
the  force  of  the  allusion,  it  is  reasonable  and  necessary  to  exa- 
mine what  were  the  precise  expressions  used  by  our  Lord.  To 
sustain  your  objection,  you  bring  forward  the  authority  of  the 
Vulgate,  which,  although  we  are  forbidden  to  reject,  we  are 
not  prohibited  from  illustrating,  by  reference  to  the  original 
text,  where  it  exists,  or  to  the  peculiar  genius  of  the  original 
languages,  to  remove  any  ambiguity  or  obscurity  that  may  be 
in  some  term  of  that  version.  You  ask  us,  *'  do  we  mean  that 
the  original  Gospel,  which  is  in  the  Greek,  is  not  our  only  sure 
authority?"  We  fully  admit  the  authority  of  the  Greek  text; 
but  this  admission  does  not  in  the  least  degree  interfere  with 
our  right  to  clear  up  any  difficulty  by  reference  to  the  language 
in  which  many  believe  that  Gospel  to  have  been  written,  or  in 
which,  at  least,  our  Redeemer  spoke.  These  are  not,  as  you 
suggest,  **  imaginary  words  which  our  Lord  might  have  used," 
but  they  are  the  words  which  he  really  used.  One  of  them  is 
known  from  the  Gospel  of  St  John  to  have  been  Cephas,  and 
the  other  is  ascertained  by  examining  whether  there  is  the  va- 
riety of  gender  and  termination  in  the  Syriac  term  as  is  found 
in  the  Greek.  The  Syriac  term  admits  no  such  variation.  The 
very  ancient  Syriac  version  proves  the  correctness  of  this  re- 
mark, and  modern  learned  Protestants  are  so  far  from  contest- 
ing it,  that,  according  to  the  testimony  of  one  of  them,  almost 
every  modern  expositor  of  note  has  abandoned  the  distinction 
between  Peter  and  the  rock  as  untenable.*  The  French  trans- 
lation fully  exhibits  the  force  of  the  allusion  as  it  was  made  by 
our  Saviour ;  because  in  French,  as  in  Syriac,  the  same  term 
which  signifies  a  rock,  is  also  an  appellative  noun.  Were  we 
to  give  a  strictly  literal  translation  of  the  sentence  into  English, 
we  would  either  say,  "  thou  art  a  ROCK,  and  on  this  ROCK 

*     Bloomfield  in  locum. 


I'KOMI.^i:  OF  Tin:   I'RIMACV.  25 

I  will  build  my  (-iimi-Ji  ;'  or,  thou  art  PETEH,  and  uj)on  this 
PE'l'ER  I  will  build  my  (-'luin-h  ;  but,  then,  eiilicr  tlie  name 
given  to  Simon  is  suppressed,  or  the  strength  and  power  wiiicii 
it  indicates  do  not  appear  to  be  properties  of  his  name  as  well 
as  of  his  olliee.  'I'he  same  may  be  saiil  of  the  CJerman,  whilst 
the  Latin,  Italian,  and  Spanish,  as  you  remark,  follow  the 
Greek,  and  retain,  with  the  variation  of  gender,  something  of 
the  original  allusion. t  I  am,  then,  perfectly  unable  to  conceive 
how  you  could  speak  of  this  reference  to  the  original  terms  as 
*»  the  fanciful  notion  of  what  our  Saviour  might  have  said  in 
Hebrew  ;"  and  speak  of  the  Greek  *'  as  the  actual  record  of 
what  he  did  say;"  especially  as  afterwards,  in  your  remarks  on 
a  text  of  St  John,  you  adopt  the  principle  which  in  this  instance 
you  reject.  Christ  certainly  spoke  not  in  Greek,  but  in  the 
language  then  generally  spoken  in  Judea,  whether  you  please 
to  designate  it  Hebrew,  Syriac,  or,  more  correctly,  Syro-Chal- 

*  The  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament  is  deservedly  of  high  re- 
pute, on  account  of  its  early  date,  and  of  the  near  affinity  between  the 
Syriac  language  and  the  Syro-Chaldaic,  which  our  Lord  used,  and  in 
which,  according  to  tlie  most  probable  opinion,  St.  Matthew  wrote  his 
Gospel.  In  this  version,  the  words  "  Peter"  and  "  Rock"  are  expressed 
by  the  same  characters  : 

Anath  chipha,  vehall  hada  chipua. 
In  the  Arabian  version,  which,  from  its  connexion  with  the  language 
in  which  Christ  spoke,  is  well  calculated  to  elucidate  the  present  sul)- 
ject,  we  read 

Anath  alsaciira,  wahal  hada  ai.sacmha. 

Another  Arabic  version  translates  Peter  and  rock  by  a  different  word 
fiom  that  used  in  the  above  (jiiotation,  but  in  both  instances  the  same 
word  (Usaphu,  is  put  for  Peter  and  the  rock. 

A  most  ancient  Chaldee  manuscript  of  St  Matthew's  gospel,  in  thi' 
collection  formerly  belonging  to  Cardinal  JJarberini,  written  in  charac- 
ters long  obsoh.'te,  and  professing  to  have  b(>en  made  in  Mesopotamia 
in  the  year  330,  uses  but  one  word  to  express  Peter  and  the  Rock,  :fciuha. 
See  the  learned  treatise  of  Ecchelensis,  a  Maronite  de  origine  nominis 
Papaj,&c.     RomiD,  MDCLX. 

t     iMtin.     Tu  C8  Pclrus  et  super  banc  prtram,  &c. 
Italian.      Tu  sei  Pietro,  e  sopra  questa  pietra,  &c. 
Spanish.     Tu  eres  Pedro,  y  sobre  esta  piedra,  &c. 
German.     Dm  bist  Pclrus  und  auf  diesen  Fclsen. 
C 


26  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

daic.  He  certainly  called  Simon,  Cephas,  for  we  are  assured' 
of  it  by  St  John,*  and  he  manifestly  referred  to  him  when  he 
said :  "  thou  art  Cephas  (a  rock),  and  on  this  Cephas  (rock)  I 
will  build  my  Church." 

The  reason  why  the  Greek  interpreter  of  St  Matthew  used  two 
distinct  terms,  was,  because  although  the  feminine  noun  properly 
expressed  the  force  of  the  original  term,  yet  the  Greeks  never 
applied  a  feminine  noun  to  a  man  except  in  derision.t  He  chose, 
then,  a  masculine  noun,  less  expressive,  but  more  appropriate. 
No  ambiguity  could  have  arisen  from  this  circumstance,  had 
not  the  ingenuity  of  controversial  writers  sought  to  wrest  from 
us  this  splendid  proof  of  the  prerogatives  of  Peter.  Every  rule 
of  correct  interpretation  has  been  recklessly  trampled  under  foot 
in  the  attempt;  and  although  the  preceding  words  were  mani- 
festly directed  to  Peter,  and  those  which  followed  were  also 
acknowledged  to  regard  him,  still  he  was  denied  to  be  the  rock 
on  which  the  Church  was  built,  as  declared  in  the  intervening 
words  which  were  necessarily  applied  to  him.  Happily  for  the 
cause  of  truth,  Cameron,:}:  Bishop  Marsh,  and  many  respectable 
modern  interpreters,  have  rejected  this  subterfuge,  so  unworthy 
of  literary  men,  and  better  calculated  to  show  the  weakness  of 
those  who  recur  to  it,  than  to  invalidate  or  obscure  the  strong 
argument  supplied  us  by  the  text,  in  the  only  interpretation  it 
can  consistently  have.  The  most  recent  editor  of  the  Greek 
text  in  England,  acknowledges  that  "  almost  every  modern  ex- 
positor of  note  refers  it  to  Peter  himself;"  "  and  with  reason ; 
for  certainly,"  as  is  observed  by  Bishop  Marsh, §  "  it  would  be 
a  desperate  undertaking  to  prove  that  Christ  meant  any  other 
person  than  Peter.  In  fact,  they  can  indicate  no  other,  con- 
sistently with  the  rules  of  correct  exegesis.  Moreover,  the 
words  following  x*/  croi  ^^'7a>  imply  that  there  had  been  some 
previous  gift  or  distinction.  In  short,  the  sense  is :  Thou  art 
by  name  JRotk;  (i.  e.  thy  name  means  Rock,)  and  suitably 
to  thai  will  be  thy  work  and  office;  for  upon  thee  (i.  e.  upon 

*  John  i.  42. 

t  Synopsis  Crit.  in  locum. 

t  See  Synopsis  Crit.  in  hunc  locum. 

§  Comparative  View.     App.  p.  27. 


PROTESTANT  INTERPRETERS.  27 

thy  j)reachin^,  as  upon  a  rock)  shall  the  foumhition  of  the 
church  be  laid."  It  may,  indeed,  seem  straiifre,  that  so  natu- 
ral and  well  founded  an  interpretation  shouUl  liave  been  passed 
over  by  any. — Hut  that  may  be  attributed  parthj  to  the  cause- 
less fears  into  whicli  Protestants  have  been  betrayed  ;  lest,  by 
admittiui^  it,  they  should  give  a  countenance  to  the  Papal  claim 
of  supreniacy  ;  and  parthj  to  an  idea  that  s-uch  a  sense  would 
be  contrary  to  what  is  elsewhere  said  in  Scripture,  namely,  that 
Christ  is  the  onhj  fuumlation.  See  1  Cor.  iii.  11.  Hut  as  to 
the  first,  the  fear  is  groundless:  it  being  (as  Hishop  Middleton 
observes)  dilhi-ult  to  see  what  advantage  coidd  be  gained  ;  un- 
less we  could  evade  the  meaning  of /ai5-a»c7-:<  txV  xm<o-,  which 
follows.  "And  as  to  the  laiier  fear,  it  is  equally  without  founda- 
tion ;  since  the  two  expressions  are  employed  in  two  very 
different  senses."*  You  will  pardon,  Right  Reverend  Sir,  this 
long  extract  from  a  Protestant  commentator  of  deservedly  high 
repute,  who,  whilst  he  asserts  that  the  fears  of  Protestants  were 
groundless,  and  endeavours  to  explain  away  the  force  of  the 
text  by  referring  it  to  a  certain  precedency  of  Peter  in  preaching 
the  Gospel,  betrays  the  weakness  of  Protestantism,  and  shows 
how  the  obvious  meaning  of  Scripture  has  been  obscured  in 
order  to  avoid  the  admission  of  an  authority  it  so  clearly  indi- 
cates. With  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  entire  passage, 
given  by  those  who  acknowledge  the  keys  to  be  the  emblem  of 
power  and  authority,  it  is  rather  a  bold  stretch  of  ingenuity  to 
understand  this,  as  well  as  the  other  no  less  strong  metaphor 
which  precedes,  of  mere  priority  in  announcing  the  Gospel  to 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  same  may  be  observed  of  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Rosenmiiller,  who,  however,  renders  a  splendid  tribute  to 
the  Catholic  explanation,  and  completely  explodes  your  distinct- 
ion between  Pctros  and  Pitra,  and  all  the  various  modes 
whereby  the  manifest  reference  to  Peter  is  sought  to  be  evaded. 
"  The  rock,"  says  he,  ♦'  is  neither  the  confession  of  Peter 
nor  Christ,  pointing  out  himself  by  his  finger,  or  by  a  shake 
of  the  head  (whicii  interpretations  the  context  does  not  admit), 

•  Bloomficld.    Com.  Mnt.  xvi.  Ir,  !'.»,  p.  TK.     Edit.  IJoston,  1-:}?. 


28  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

but  Peter  himself.  The  Lord,  speaking  in  Syriac,  used  no 
diversity  of  name,  but  in  both  places  said  Cephas,  as  the 
French  word  pierre  is  said  both  of  a  proper  and  appellative 
noun.  He  pointed  out  Peter  therefore  either  by  his  finger,  or 
nod ;  for  that  gesture  suited  his  purpose  to  explain  the  reason 
of  giving  him  this  name.  So  it  was  said  of  Abraham  :  Thy 
name  shall  be  Abraham,  because  I  liave  made  thee  father  of 
many  nations.  Of  Jacob :  Israel  shall  be  thy  name,  for  thou 
actest  as  a  prince  with  angels  and  men.  So  Christ  says : 
Thou  art  called  by  me  Peter,  because  thou  wilt  be  as  a  rock. 
And  he  promises  that  he  will  build  his  Church  on  Peter. 
Allusion  is  made  to  the  custom  prevailing  in  Palestine  of  build- 
ing houses  that  are  exposed  to  floods  and  whirlwinds,  on  a 
rocky  soil,  that  they  may  be  able  to  resist  the  violence  of 
waters  and  winds.  Mat.  vii.  24,  25.  Therefore  whosoever 
thinks  of  building  a  durable  house,  should  above  all  look 
around  for  a  rock,  or  firm  ground  :  the  rock  is  the  first  thing 
whence  the  work  is  to  be  begun."* 

Although  these  observations,  emanating  as  they  do  from  men 
adverse  to  the  Catholic  church,  are  sufficient  for  my  purpose, 
the  two  following  extracts  need  no  apology': 

In  *'  Gerard's  Institutes  of  Biblical  Criticism"  is  contained 
the  following  justobservaiion — Canon  511 :  "The  most  obvious 
and  natural  sense  is  to  be  set  aside  only  when  it  is  absolutely 
contradictory  to  something  plainly  taught  in  Scripture."  He 
then  remarks  that  "  the  opposite  way  has  been  taken  by  all 
sects;"  and  quotes  the  18th  verse  of  the  16th  chapter  of  St 
Matthew.  "  Thou,  &c.,  building  on  Peter,  is  explained  by- 
some,  as  contrary  to  the  faith  that  Christ  is  the  only  founda- 
tion (1  Cor.  iii.  2.),  and  as  favouring  the  succession  of  Peter 
and  his  successors ;  but  the  connexion  shows  that  PETER  IS 
HERE  PLAINLY  MEANT."  Edition  of  Boston,  1823. 
Such  is  the  language  of  this  text-book  of  many  Protestant  Col- 
leges and  Theological  Institutions,  both  in  this  country  and  in 
England. 

^     Scholia  in  Novum  Test.,  Tom.  I,  p.  336.    Norumb.  an.  1815. 


LITERARY  BLrNDER. VKMLIL'S.  29 

The  Reverend  Mr  Thompson  of  Cilastrow,  in  liis  Munates- 
saroHy  reprinted  at  Baltimore,  1829,  p.  194,  on  this  text,  gives 
three  interpretations.  He  thinks  the  two  first  unfounded,  and 
thus  quotes  the  third  : 

"  Tlie  third  opinion  is,  that  both  the  words  petros  iiud  pftra 
are  here  used  as  appellations  of  the  Apostle  ;  and,  consequently, 
Peter  was  the  rock  on  which  Christ  said  liis  Church  should  bo 
built.  To  this  the  connexion  and  scope  of  the  passage  agree. 
There  seems  to  be  something  forced  in  every  other  construc- 
tion, and  an  inaptitude  in  the  language  and  ligure  of  the  text  in 
every  attempt  to  construct  the  words  otherwise.  Protestants 
have  betrayed  unnecessary  fears,  and  have,  therefore,  used  all 
the  HARDIHOOD  of  LAWLESS  CRITICISM  in  their  at- 
tempts to  reason  away  the  Catholic  interpretation." 

Although  not  immediately  connected  with  my  present  sub- 
ject, I  must  notice  what  you  call  "  a  strange  error  based  upon 
a  text  in  the  Gospel  of  St  John,  which  several  of  the  popes  of 
Rome  have  advanced  in  their  solicitude  to  find  authority  for 
their  favourite  doctrine."  It  is  thus  slated  by  V'igilius  in  a 
letter  to  Eleutherius:  *'  Although  the  election  of  all  the  Apos- 
tles was  the  same,  yet  it  was  granted  to  blessed  Peter  that  he 
should  be  raised  above  the  rest;  whence  ho  was  called  Cephas, 
because  he  was  the  head  and  the  fust  of  all  the  Apostles,  and 
what  precedes  in  the  head,  must  necessarily  be  followed  in  the 
members."*  You  smile  at  this  supposed  literary  blunder,  be- 
cause you  imagine  that  Vigilius  confounded  Cephas,  a  Syrian 
term,  with  the  Greek  word,  of  somewhat  similar  sound,  t«9a>^''. 
signifying  t/ic  hrud,  and  that  he  thence  inferred  that  Peter  was 
the  head  of  the  Apostles,  'i'he  text  which  you  bring  forward 
does  not,  however,  prove  this  mistake,  for  though  the  writer 
argues  from  Peter's  name  that  he  was  head  and  first  of  all  the 
Apostles,  he  does  not  say  that  the  name  signified  "  a  head." 
We  make  a  like  inference  from  the  same  appellation  ;  yet  we 
know  the  meaning  of  the  term  Cephas  to  be  not  *'  a  heoil,'^  but 

'     Mansi,  Tom.  1,  p.  77    Cul.  Cone.  •'  Unde  ct  Cephas  vocatur.  'juia 
caput  et  primuri  ost  omnium  apostolorum." 
c* 


30  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

*'  a  rock.^^  The  relation  of  a  foundation  to  a  building  may  be 
compared  to  the  relation  of  the  head  to  the  body,  and  conse- 
quently of  a  ruler  to  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ. 

The  letter  in  question,  as  well  as  the  other  passage  quoted 
by  you,  is,  at  best,  of  doubtful  authenticity.  The  publisher 
of  the  collection  of  the  Councils  gives  it  as  a  part  of  some 
tract  on  the  primacy,  which  came  to  light  in  the  early  part 
of  the  sixteenth  century ;  and  he  avows  that  his  object  is  to 
preserve  the  various  writings  on  that  subject,  whatever  be 
their  character.  It  has  no  place  among  the  writings  of  Vigilius, 
given  in  their  regular  order,  but  is  placed  in  the  first  volume 
with  other  documents  confessedly  spurious.  In  the  genuine 
writings  of  that  pontiff  we  find  that  he  assumes  higher  ground 
than  a  mere  verbal  allusion.  In  his  letter  to  the  whole  Catholic 
Church,  speaking  of  the  part  which  his  predecessors  Celestine 
and  Leo  took  in  the  condemnation  of  heresy,  he  observes  :  "  Our 
God  from  heaven  armed  the  pastoral  ofiice  against  these  fierce 
errors :  recommending  which  office  to  blessed  Peter,  with  thrice 
repeated  injunctions,  he  says.  Feed  my  sheep  :  and  justly  was 
the  charge  of  feeding  them  committed  to  him,  whose  glorious 
confession  of  faith  was  praised  by  the  mouth  of  God.  For 
when  he  confessed  in  a  saving  manner,  and  said  :  Thou  art 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  perpetual  blessedness  is 
given  him  in  return,  and  he  is  called  the  son  of  the  dove,  and 
receives  the  keys  of  the  heavenly  kingdom.*  You  perceive, 
that  Vigilius,  addressing  *'  the  whole  Catholic  Church,"  does 
not  rest  his  authority  on  a  "  literary  blunder,"  but  on  the  pro- 
mises of  our  God  and  Saviour.  To  account  for  the  supposed 
blunder,  you  observe  that  the  name  of  this  apostle  "  appears  to 
us  in  two  shapes,  indeed,  because  the  Saviour  spoke  in  He- 
brew, and  St  John  wrote  in  Greek,  but  they  have  the  same 
signification."  What,  Sir,  refer  to  the  language  used  by  our 
Lord,  after  having,  a  few  pages  before,  condemned  such  a 
reference  as  no  better  than  '*  a  fanciful  imagination  calculated 
to  prostrate  the  authority  of  the  whole  word  of  God  ?" 

*     Vigilii,  p.  ep.  ad  univ.  Eccl.  Tom.  III.  Cone.  Hard.  Col.  5. 


CHARGE  OF  CHRIST  TO  PETKR.  81 

The  promise  made  by  Jesus  Christ  to  Peter  was  to  be  ful- 
filled after  his  resurrection.  At  the  last  supper,  a  contention 
having  arisen  among  tlie  Apostles  which  should  be  tlie  greater, 
Christ  took  occasion  to  inculcate  to  all  the  necessity  of  humility 
and  mutual  condescension.  Addressing  Peter  in  a  special  man- 
ner, he  apprised  him  of  the  violent  efforts  of  Satan  against  them 
all,  but  gave  him  the  consoling  assurance  that  he  had  prayed 
for  him  in  particular,*  that  his  faith  might  not  fail.  He  re- 
minded him  of  the  obligation  which  his  office  would  impose  of 
confirming  his  brethren  in  the  faith,  and  urged  him  to  its  per- 
formance :  *'  Simon,  Simon,  behold  Satan  hath  desired  to  have 
YOU  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat.  But  I  have  prayed  for 
THEE  that  THY  faitli  fail  not:  and  thou  being  once  converted, 
CONFIRM  THY  BRETHREN. t  An  addrcss  of  this  kind  on  such 
an  occasion  shows  that  Peter  was  to  be  the  superior  of  the 
rest,  and  on  that  account  was  the  special  object  of  the  prayer  of 
his  divine  Master — that  being  himscll'  strong  in  faith,  he  might 
be  able  to  confirm  liis  brethren.  That  prayer  did  not  prevent 
his  grievous  fall  on  that  very  night,  although  Christ  be  "  al- 
ways heard  for  his  reverence  ;"  but  it  was  directed  to  a  sub- 
limer  object  than  the  personal  perseverance  of  Peter :  it  regarded 
the  office  which  he  was  to  exercise  towards  others,  and  the 
performance  of  which  was  so  earnestly  enjoined.  When  ele- 
vated to  the  pastoral  dignity,  he  was  to  look  around,  from  time 
to   time,±    to  the  various    portions  of  his   great  charge,   and 

*  ty/wic — 5-K.  Thechangeof  number,  more  apparent  in  the  Greek  text 
than  in  the  English  translation,  shows  that  while  Satan  directed  his 
efforts  against  all  the  Apostles,  Christ  prayed  especially  for  one — Peter. 

t     Luke  xxii.  32. 

t  o-u  irort  iT/r^i^flic.  The  learned  Clrotius  discovers  in  Uiis  express- 
ion a  Hebraism,  denoting  the  repetition  of  an  act :  "  tu  quoque  olim 
vicissini  fratrcs  confirma:"  "do  thou  also,  on  thy  part,  from  time  to 
time  confirm  thy  brethren."  The  Septuagint  U8e  this  Greek  verb  for 
the  Hebrew  DIBT*,  which,  when  united  with  anotiier  verb,  may  be  ren- 
dered by  the  adverb,  again.  Thus  :  iTTir^i^atc  <ra.»cri/c  */Ufltc,  "Thou  will 
again  save  us."  Pb  Ixxxv.  G  »See  Synopsis  Sac.  Crit.  in  hunc  locum. 
Also,  John  xxi.  20,  tTnr^*<ptis^   means  turning  toirards.     Many  eminent 


32  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

strengthen,  by  his  teaching  and  authority,  those  who  might  be 
weak  in  faith. 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  our  Lord  prepared  the  Apos- 
tles for  his  most  important  institutions  by  a  promise  made  long 
before  their  actual  establishment.  Thus,  in  the  course  of  his 
life,  he  promised  to  them  all  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  ; 
and,  after  his  resurrection,  he  gave  them  the  power  of  forgiving 
and  retaining  sins,  which  he  had  previously  and  principally  de- 
signated by  that  of  loosing  and  binding.  He  had  made  a  spe- 
cial promise  to  Peter  that  he  would  give  him  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  he  accordingly  gave  to  him,  in  an 
especial  manner,  the  charge  of  feeding  his  lambs  and  sheep, 
thereby  constituting  him  shepherd  of  the  entire  flock.  The 
fact  is  thus  related  by  the  Evangelist  St  John:  "  Jesus  saith 
to  Simon  Peter:  Simon,  son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me  more 
than  these  ?  He  saith  to  him  :  Yea,  liOrd,  thou  knowest  that 
I  love  thee.  He  saith  to  him :  Feed  my  lambs.  He  saith  to 
him  again:  Simon,  son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me?  He  saith  to 
him :  Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  He  saith  to 
him  :  Feed  my  lambs.  He  saith  to  him  the  third  time  :  Simon, 
son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me  ?  Peter  was  grieved,  because  he 
said  to  him  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou  me  ?  And  he  said  to 
him :  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things  :  thou  knowest  that  I  love 
thee.     He  said  to  him  :  Feed  my  sheep."* 

There  were  present  on  this  occasion,  at  least,  Thomas  the 
Apostle,  and  John  and  James,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  two 
other  of  his  disciples,  besides  Nathaniel,  of  Cana  in  Galilee.t 
Christ  addresses  Peter  alone,  questions  him  as  to  his  love,  but 
is  not  satisfied  with  a  declaration  of  ordinary  love.  He  asks 
whether  he  has  a  special  love  for  Him,  greater  than  that  which 
the  others  cherish  ;  "  Simon,  son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me  more 
than  these  ?"  He  must  then  mean  to  confer  a  special  preroga- 
tive,— to  constitute  him  Pastor  in  a  sense  more  sublime  than 

writers,  however,  explain  it  of  the  duty  to  be  performed  after  his  con- 
version, when  he  was  to  be  constituted  Pastor  of  the  fold,  and  to  receive 
the  grace  necessary  to  discharge  faithfully  his  office. 
*     John  xxi.  15.  i     John  xxi.  2. 


GRANT  OF  THE  PRIMACY.  33 

that  in  which  Thomas,  or  John,  or  James,  were  Pastors.  Peter 
having  declared  liis  greater  love,  and  having  appealed  to  the 
Saviour  himself,  as  knowing  his  aflection,  receives  the  charge 
to  feed  the  tender  lambs  of  Christ :  "  Feed  my  lambs." '  The 
question  is  again  and  a  third  time  repeated,  not  to  ascertain  what 
Christ  so  well  knew, — not  merely  to  require  the  three  protesta- 
tions of  love  as  an  atonement  for  the  three  denials,  and  a  condi- 
tion for  elevating  him  to  the  pastoral  oihce,  since  he  receives  the 
authority  and  commission  on  his  first  declaration  of  love, — but 
to  point  out  in  a  strong  manner  the  peculiar  and  sublime  cha- 
racter of  his  pastoral  authority.  He  is  first  commanded  to  feed 
the  lambs  of  Christ,  and  the  term  used  denotes  strictly  tlie  act 
of  giving  them  food  or  pasture,  that  he  may  understand  that  his 
duty  is  to  give  the  pastures  of  eternal  life — tlie  divine  doctrines 
of  faith — to  the  weakest,  lowliest  of  the  faithful,  that  their  souls 
may  be  therewith  nourished.  On  his  second  protestation  of  love, 
the  nature  of  his  office  is  more  fully  developed.  He  is  told  to  do 
all  the  duties  of  a  shepherd  ;t  not  only  to  give  them  salutary  pas- 
tures, and  lead  them  to  the  refreshing  streams,  but  to  tend,  to 
watch  over,  to  restrain,  to  bring  back  the  stray  sheep  to  the 
fold,  to  cast  away  the  contagious,  and  in  all  things  to  imitate 
Him  whose  place  he  holds,  whose  sheep  he  tends,  whose  name 
he  bears — the  one  Shepherd  of  the  one  fold.  Again,  the  Sa- 
viour demands  the  declaration  of  his  love,  and  the  alllicled 
Apostle  appeals  to  Him,  as  the  searcher  of  hearts,  to  whom  all 
things  lie  open,  and  who  consequently  knows  the  sincerity  of 
his  love:  '♦  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  tilings  :  thou  knowest  that 
I  love  thee."  The  pastoral  charge  is  then  extended  to  the 
sheep  of  ('hrist — to  those  who  are  as  the  parents  of  the  tender 
lambs — those  who  bring  them  forth  in  C'hrist:  "Feed  my 
sheep. ":{:     The  term  by  which  this  exercise  of  pastoral  care  is 


t  wii/xAiit  Tat  fr^i0AT»  fxou.  The  Vulgate  road  apvisL.  The  Greek 
term  is  taken  for  governinj;,  aH  kinjrs  were  called  shepherds  of  the  peo- 
ple :  ^ti/uiric   Aato»r.     Se»r  IltJiner,  pasHiiii. 


34  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

expressed,  signifies  to  give  food,  because  it  is  the  chief  duty  of 
the  great  Shepherd  to  phice  in  salutary  pastures  the  sheep,  that 
they  and  their  tender  offspring  may  be  nourished.  Dropping 
the  metaphor,  he  must  communicate  to  them,  in  its  integrity, 
the  divine  doctrine,  such  as  he  received  it  from  Christ,  that  they 
may  be  fit  to  teach  others.  His  duly  towards  them  is  chiefly  to 
instruct  them,  though,  as  shepherd  of  the  entire  flock,  he  can 
wield,  even  in  their  regard,  the  staft'  of  pastoral  correction. 
Hence  it  is  manifest  that  blessed  Peter,  and  in  him  his  success- 
ors, received  from  Christ  full  power  to  feed,  to  rule,  and  go- 
vern the  Church  of  God;  that  is,  the  entire  flock  of  Christ,  as 
the  Council  of  Florence  defined. 

The  character  of  this  authority  is  beautifully  represented  by 
the  image  of  a  Shepherd,  which  is  presented  in  so  tender  a  man- 
ner in  the  Old  as  well  as  the  New  Testament;  and  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  divine  design  is  indicated  of  uniting  Jews  and 
Gentiles  in  one  fold  under  one  Shepherd.  Arnobius,  a  French 
writer  of  the  fifth  century,  thus  expatiates  on  the  appointment 
of  Peter  to  the  office  of  Pastor  :  "  Behold  the  penitent  Apostle, 
who  is  the  bishop  of  bishops,  is  relieved,  and  a  higher  dignity 
is  given  to  him  after  his  tears,  than  was  taken  away  from  him  at 
his  fall.  This  I  prove  from  the  fact  that  none  of  the  Apostles 
was  styled  Shepherd  :  for  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  alone  said  :  I 
am  the  good  Shepherd,  and  again  my  sheep  follow  me.  He 
granted,  then,  after  his  resurrection,  this  holy  name  to  penitent 
Peter;  and  he  who  was  denied,  gave  to  him  who  had  denied 
him,  the  power  which  he  alone  had."* 

The  justness  of  our  interpretation  is  fully  sustained  by  some 
eminent  Protestant  annotators  on  this  place.  "  The  true  inter- 
pretation," says  Bloomfield,  in  reference  to  the  comparison  made 
in  the  first  interrogation,  "  seems  to  be  that  of  the  ancient,  and 
many  of  the  most  eminent  modern  commentators,  as  Lampe, 
Campbell,  Kuinoel,  and  Tittman,  who  assign  the  following 
sense  :  Dost  thou  love  me  more  than  those  do?  It  is  proper  to 
observe,  that  though  our  Lord  asks  the  question  thrice,  yet  the 

*     Arnobius  in  finem,  Ps.  cxxxviii. 


EXERCISE   OF  TMF    PRIMACV.  35 

admonition,  which  each  time  follows  it  up,  is  not  quite  the 
same  ;  for  /S-.a-Ktn  signifies  simply  to  feed,  provide  willi  pasture  ; 
rroifJiaLirtiv  both  to  feed  and  to  tend ;  the  former  being  especially 
applicable  to  ifu*  (meaning  young,  raw  professors),  and  the  lat- 
ter to  rrpcfixTx,  OT  the  morc  advanced  and  mature  professors. 
And  the  notion  of  tending  necessarily  carries  with  it  that  of 
guiding  and  governing."* 

I  submit  these  critical  remarks  of  the  learned  vicar  of  Bis- 
brooke,  to  show  that,  although  many  Protestants,  from  a  dread 
of  findinor  the  privileges  of  Peter  in  these  words  of  Christ,  have 
given  to  them  a  forced,  inane,  and  even  ridiculous  inter])retalion  ; 
yet  that  others,  who  have  a  character  for  learning  and  impar- 
tiality, admit  the  substantial  correctness  of  our  interpretation, 
whilst  they  deny  the  necessary  consequence  of  their  own  ad- 
missions, and,  to  use  the  words  of  St  Hilary,  ofTer  violence  to 
the  glorious  words  of  our  Redeemer. 

I  know  not  in  what  more  solemn  manner  Christ  could  have 
manifested  his  will  that  Peter  should  govern  the  Church  by  his 
authority.  He  declared  him  the  rock  on  which  it  was  built — 
he  gave  him  the  keys,  the  emblem  of  power  and  authority, 
thereby  clearly  api)ointing  him  the  ruler  of  his  spiritual  king- 
dom. Of  him,  especially,  he  declared,  that  what  he  should  bind 
on  earth  would  be  bound  in  heaven ;  what  he  should  loose  on 
earth  would  be  loosed  in  heaven.  For  him,  especially,  he 
prayed  that  his  faith  might  not  fail — and  to  him  alone  he  gave 
the  charge  to  confirm  his  brethren.  In  fine,  after  exacting  from 
him  a  protestation  of  special  love,  he  commissioned  hiin  lo  feed 
his  lambs  and  sheep  ;  to  perform  towards  both  all  the  duties  ol 
a  Shepherd. 

The  actual  exercise  of  the  pastoral  and  governing  authority 
of  Peter  is  clearly  marked  in  the  divine  Scriptures.  One  of  the 
most  solemn  acts  of  authority  is  to  create  subordinate  pastors, 
and  especially  to  communicate  the  Apostolic  power  and  cha- 
racter. Judas  had  left  his  place  vacant  in  the  Apostolic  col- 
lege, and  l^eter  took  the  earliest  opportunity  to  fill  tiie  vacancy. 

"     Notes  on  Greek  ttxt  of  John  x\i.  Jo. 


36  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

Whilst  the  Apostles  and  other  disciples  of  the  Lord,  to  the 
number  of  about  one  hundred  and  twenty,  were  persevering 
with  one  mind  in  prayer,  awaiting  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  was 
promised  them,  "  Peter,  rising  up  in  the  midst  of  the  brethren,"* 
urged  the  necessity  of  choosing  one  "  to  take  the  place  of  this 
ministry  and  Apostleship."  Though  he  did  not  act  at  once  and 
of  himself,  but  sought  the  advice  and  concurrence  of  the  bre- 
thren, yet,  by  originating  the  measure,  he  showed  that  his  office 
imposed  on  him  the  duty  of  seeing  that  the  vacancy  was  filled, 
whilst  he  manifested  condescension  and  regard  for  the  sugges- 
tions and  wishes  of  his  inferiors  in  authority.  He  could,  doubt- 
less, as  St  Chrysostom  observes,  have  acted  with  entire  inde- 
pendence, but  he  had  been  educated  in  the  school  of  humility, 
and  learned  to  imitate  Him  whose  power  he  was  commissioned 
to  exercise :  "  How  fervent  he  is,"  exclaims  Chrysostom, 
"how  he  manifests  that  the  flock  was  committed  by  Christ  to 
his  charge, — see  how  he  is  the  prince  of  this  band,  and  every 
where  is  the  first  to  speak. — Why  did  he  not  alone  ask  of 
Christ  to  give  him  some  one  to  be  substituted  in  the  place  of 
Judas  ?  Why  do  they  not  rather  of  themselves  make  the  choice  ? 
Peter  had  already  become  better  than  he  was. — Consider 
how  Peter  does  all  according  to  the  common  wish  of  the 
disciples — nothing  by  his  own  authority,  nothing  in  an  im- 
perious manner. — Men,  brethren,  he  says  :  since  the  Lord 
called  his  disciples  brethren,  it  is  still  more  becoming  that 
Peter  should  thus  address  his  fellow  disciples,  wherefore  he 
spoke  to  all  present;  Behold  the  dignity  of  the  Church:  be- 
hold the  angelic  state  of  harmony  and  love. — Why  does  he 
consult  them  on  this  matter  ?  liCst  it  should  become  an  occa- 
sion of  dissention  and  dispute. — But  he  himself  points  out  those 
from  whom  the  choice  should  be  made :  '  of  these  men  who  have 
been  with  us  all  the  time.'  Was  it  not  lawful  for  himself  to 
make  the  choice?     It  was,  and,  indeed,  pre-eminently  lawful::}: 


*    Acts  i.  15. 

t     Quid  ?  an  non  licebat  ipsi  eligere  ?  licebat,  et  quidem  maxime. — 
P.  182,  Vol.  111.     St  Chrys.  edit.     Par.  1C87. 


COUNTIL  OF  JERUSALKM.  37 

but  he  abstains  from  it,  lust  lie  should  appear  to  favour  any 
one.  Justly  he  first  of  all  takes  to  himself  authority  in  tliis 
matter,  as  having  them  all  under  his  control  ;  for  to  liini  (.'lirist 
said  :  "  thou  being  onee  converted,  conlirm  thy  brethren.""  It 
is  pleasing  to  be  able  to  sliow  in  what  light  this  act  was  viewed 
by  so  bright  an  ornament  of  the  Greek  Church  in  the  fourth 
century.  It  is  not,  then,  as  you  assert,  we  who  strive  to  find 
Scriptural  authority  for  the  Primacy,  but  one  of  the  most  il- 
lustrious men  of  antiquity, — one  occupying  the  chair  of  the 
rival  city,  the  new  Rome,  who  recognises  a  splendid  instance  of 
the  (uoderate  use  of  supreme  power  in  the  conduct  of  Peter  on 
this  occasion. 

A  still  more  illustrious  exercise  of  his  high  office,  as  "guar- 
dian of  the  faith, "t  occurs  in  the  history  of  the  first  Council 
of  Jeru^falem.  Great  excitement  was  caused  at  Antioch  by  cer- 
tain Judaizing  Christians,  who  insisted  that  the  converts  from 
the  Gentiles  should  be  subjected  to  circumcision  and  the  legal 
observances.  "  Paul  and  liarnabas  had  no  small  contest  with 
them,"]:  but  were  unable  to  induce  all  to  acquiesce  in  their  judg- 
ment; wherefore  it  was  determiiuHl  that  they  ''and  certain 
others  of  the  other  side,  should  go  up  to  the  Apostles  and 
j)riests  to  Jerusalem  about  this  question."  "  The  Apostles  and 
ancients  came  together  to  consider  of  tliis  matter,  and  when 
there  was  much  disputing,  l*eter,  rising  up,  said  to  them  : 
Men,  brethren,  you  know  that  in  former  days  God  made 
choice  among  us,  that  the  Gentiles  by  my  mouth  should  hear 
the  word  of  the  Gospel,  and  believe.  And  God,  who  knowetli 
the  hearts,  gave  them  testimony,  giving  to  them  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  to  us  :  and  made  no  diflerence  between  us  and 
them,  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith.      Now,   therefore,  why 

*     St  Clirys.  hotn.  III.  in  1  cap.  Act.  pp.  li?l,  \t2. 

t  TIh'  appellation  givfii  to  Cclcstint',  as  successor  of  Petor,  in  the 
Gen»'ral  Council  of  Ephesus,  an.  i'M  :  Kixir<'r»  tc*  >Ja«x/  tmc  TiTimc, 
one  of  the  acclamations  after  the  public  reading  of  his  doctrinal  exposi- 
tion of  tlic  faith  against  the  heresy  of  Eutyches.  Cone.  Eph.  Act.  11. 
T.  I.  Cone.  Hard.  Col.  HTii. 

t     Acta  XV.  'J. 


38  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

tempt  you  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  necks  of  the  disciples, 
which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear?  But  by 
the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  we  believe  to  be  saved  even 
as  they."  I  pray  you  to  observe  the  result  of  this  discourse: 
"  All  the  multitude  held  their  peace."*  Previously  there  had 
been  at  Antioch  great  opposition  and  contest,  notwithstanding 
the  reverence  due  to  the  Apostolic  character  in  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas :  the  collision  of  sentiment  Ivad  been  renewed  in  the  Coun- 
cil with  considerable  feeling.  Peter  authoritatively  speaks,  re- 
minds them  that  he  had  been  chosen  to  announce  the  Gospel  to 
the  Gentiles,  that  God  had  given  evidences  of  his  favour 
towards  them,  reproaches  his  brethren  with  seeking  unne- 
cessarily to  burden  them  with  the  multifarious  observances  of 
the  ceremonial  law:  and  declares  the  great  principle  of  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  only  foundation  of  hope  for  Jew  or  Gen- 
tile. No  sooner  has  he  spoken  than  all  acquiesce :  no  dissent- 
ing voice  is  heard,  no  murmur  :  all  opposition  ceases  ;  and  who- 
ever rises  to  speak  only  confirms,  like  Paul  and  Barnabas,  by 
the  narrative  of  miraculous  facts,  what  Peter  had  declared  of 
the  favour  shown  by  God  to  the  Gentiles  ;  or,  like  James, 
refers  to  the  prophecies,  adding  the  suggestiont  of  the  mea- 
sures to  be  decreed,  that  the  principle  might  be  carried  into  suc- 
cessful execution.  I  do  not  see  how  any  man  can  read  the  sim- 
ple history  of  this  controversy,  by  the  inspired  writer,  and  not 
perceive  the  great  weight  of  Peter's  authority  in  its  termination. 
The  letter  of  the  Council,  drawn  up  in  the  name  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  ancients,  expressive  of  the  principle  laid  down  by  Pe- 
ter, and  of  the  practical  measure  suggested  by  James,  is  declared 
to  emanate  from  the  Holy  Ghost :  "  it  hath  seemed  good  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us. "J  The  writers  of  antiquity  speak  of 
it  as  the  sentence  or  decree  of  Peter.     In  the  third  century, 


*    Acts  XV.  12. 

t  K^tvce  "I  judge,"  is  the  simple  expression  of  sentiment,  whether 
authoritative,  or  void  of  authority.  See  Thucydid.  iv.  GO.  It  corresponds 
to  the  Latin  censco. 

i     lb.  v.  28. 


COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM.  39 

Terlullian  describes  it  as  the  exercise  of  liis  power  of  binding 
and  loosing  :  "  liie  decree  of  l*eler  loosed  such  things  of  the  law 
as  were  set  aside,  and  bound  fast  such  as  were  retained."'  In 
the  fourth,  St  Jeroni  says  that  Peter  was  the  author  of  this  de- 
cree,! and  the  celebrated  Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyrus,  speaks 
of  the  controversy,  as  a  matter  referred  by  Paul  to  Peter,  thai 
by  his  supreme  authority  it  mi^dn  he  definitively  settled.  ♦•  If 
Paul,"  says  he  in  his  letter  to  Pope  Leo,  "  who  was  the  herald 
of  truth,  the  organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  had  recourse  to  the  great 
Peter,  in  order  to  obtain  a  solution  from  him  concerning  the 
observances  of  the  law  for  those  who  disputed  at  Antioch  on 
this  subject,  with  much  greater  reason  we,  who  are  abject  and 
weak,  iiave  recourse  to  your  Apostolic  Sec,  that  we  may  receive 
from  you  remedies  for  the  wounds  of  the  churches.  For  it  is 
tit  that  you  in  all  things  should  be  first. "J  Cave  explains  the 
words  of  Paul,  that  *'  he  went  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,"  of 
his  going  up  on  this  occasion. § 

Your  assertions  that  this  Council  was  not  called  by  Peter, 
that  Peter  did  not  preside  in  it,  and  that  its  decrees  were  not 
confirmed  by  him,  are,  to  say  the  least,  perfectly  gratuitous.  He 
was  evidently  the  leading  character  in  the  Council,  as  Cave  ad- 
mits. Chrysostom  calls  our  attention  to  the  wisdom  with  which 
he  permitted  the  discussion,  and  then  authoritatively  interposed : 
**  See,"  says  he,  "  he  permits  the  inquiry  and  dispute  to  go  on, 
and  then  he  himself  speaks  :"||  and  he  observes  it  as  an  evidence 
of  the  harmony  and  condescension  which  prevailed,  that  Paul 
was  allowed  to  speak  after  Peter  had  pronounced  judgment: 
♦'  See,  Paul  speaks  after  Peter,  and  no  one  closes  his  mouth. "f 

*     TortuUian,  1.  do  pudicitia. 

t  "  Princippin  hujus  fuisso  docrcti."  S.  Ilicron.  Aug.  Ep.  75,  alias 
xi.,  inter  August.  S.  b,  col.  172.  Tom.  II. 

t     Theodorot.  ad  Leonem. 

§  Pelruin  ibi  convenit  occaaionc,  utvidctur,  Concilii  Apostolici — cu- 
JU8  Pclrus  pars  magna  fuit."     Sn'C.  Ap.  p.G. 

II  S.  Chrys.  horn,  xxxii.  inc.  xv.  Act.  Ap.  p.  2r.O.  Tom.  III.  Edit 
Paris,  HW7. 

IT     Horn,  .xxxiii.  p.  200. 


40  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

To  establish  the  primacy  of  Peter,  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove 
that  he  exercised,  at  all  times,  and  in  every  circumstance,  his 
prerogative  to  its  utmost  extent:  since  moderation,  condescen- 
sion and  humility,  had  been  prescribed  to  him  by  his  divine 
master;  and  Chrysostom  testifies,  that  in  this  spirit  he  abstain- 
ed from  appointing  the  Apostle  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas,  ^vhich, 
nevertheless,  he  was  fully  authorized  to  do.  The  performance, 
however,  of  any  act  which  supposes  superior  power,  is  a  proof 
that  he  possessed  it ;  because  an  Apostle  of  Christ  was  not  likely 
to  usurp  a  power  not  communicated  by  the  Redeemer.  When, 
therefore,  we  see  him  stand  forward,  and  silence  the  disputants 
by  his  meek  rebuke,  we  cannot  fail  to  recognise  him  as  the  high 
judge  of  religious  controversy. 

It  has  pleased  the  Holy  Spirit  to  leave  on  record  but  a  few 
of  the  circumstances  connected  with  this  model  of  councils  : 
but  these  few  sufficiently  show  that  Peter  was  there,  that  he 
either  called  the  council,  or  assented  to  its  convocation,  that 
he  spoke  with  authority  and  effect,  silencing  all  disputation  by 
his  discourse,  and  that  the  decree  was  in  strict  conformity  with 
his  judgment.  The  forms  are  of  little  importance  where  the  au- 
thority is  fully  respected  and  admitted.  To  be  Prince  and  Primate 
in  the  Church  of  God,  it  was  not  necessary  that  he  should  stand 
alone,  separated  from  his  colleagues  in  the  apostolate  and  episco- 
pacy, and  resting  solely  on  the  prerogative  of  his  station.  It  is 
delightful  to  see  him  in  the  council  of  his  brethren,  causing 
the  ardour  of  disputation  to  subside  by  authoritative  instruction, 
and  enlightening  the  minds  of  his  colleagues,  and  of  the  faithful, 
by  unfolding  to  them  the  oracles  of  God.  The  decree  which  ex- 
presses his  judgment,  and  that  of  his  colleagues,  and  the  faith  of 
the  whole  Church,  is  no  way  derogatory  to  his  high  prerogative. 

The  perpetuity  of  the  privileges  of  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles  in  the  Church  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the 
divine  institution  of  the  Primacy.  It  is  the  foundation 
which  must  remain  as  long  as  the  edifice  which  it  supports 
subsists — it  is  the  governing  power,  without  which  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  would  be  divided  and  brought  to  desolation 
— it  is  the  pastoral  office,  by  which  the  sheep  of  Christ  are 


PERPETUITY  OF  THK   PRIMACY.  41 

to  be  for  ever  preserved  in  uniiy,  ami  lo  be  one  fold  under  one 
Sheplierd.  As  llie  perpcluily  of  the  Apostolic  commission 
to  teach,  baptize,  and  perform  the  other  functions  of  the  sacred 
ministry  is  admitted,  though  the  words  were  addressed  lo  the 
Apostles  only,  with  the  assurance,  however,  that  Christ  would 
be  with  them  till  the  consummation  of  ages;  so  must  the  per- 
petuity of  the  governing  power  and  pastoral  oftlce,  originally 
conferred  on  Peter,  be  acknowledged,  especially  since,  in  im- 
mediate connexion  with  it,  the  assurance  was  given  that  the 
gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail, — a  promise  which  at  least  in- 
directly regards  the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is  built. 
*'  Neither  against  the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is  built,  nor 
against  the  Church  s1il\11  the  gates  of  hell  prevail."* 

That  Peter  founded  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  in  conjunction 
with  Paul  exercised  there  his  Apostolic  ministry,  and  that  both 
Apostles  died  martyrs  for  the  failh  in  that  city,  are  facts  at- 
tested by  all  antiquity,  and  freely  adiniltcd  by  tlie  most  respect- 
able Protestant  writers.  "  We  intrepidly  aflirm,"  says  Cave. 
**  with  all  antiquity,  that  Peter  was  at  Rome,  and  for  some 
time  resided  there. "t  You  deny  that  he  was  Bishop  of  Rome, 
because  the  Apostolic  commission  was  general  ♦'  to  the  whole 
world  :"  but  the  government  of  that  particular  Church  did  not 
prevent  his  discharge  of  all  the  duties  of  the  Apostleship.J 
The  early  writers,  as  Irenajus,  speak  conjointly  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  as  founding  the  C/hurch  of  Rome,  because  of  their  joint 
labours,  and  tl'.eir  martyrdom  in  that  city  at  the  close  of  their 
apostolic  ministry:  some,  as  Epiphanius,  designate  them  both 
its  bishops,  as  Cave  remarks  ;  but  whenever  the  Roman  See  is 
spoken  of  in  reference  to  one  Apostle  as  its  first  bishop,  thai 
Apostle  is  uniformly  Peter,  and  not  Paul.     Hence,  it  is  called 

•     Origen,  in  C.  xvi.  Mat.  Tom.  XII.,  p  o"J(). 

t     Cave  Stcc.  Apost.  S.  I'ctrus,  p.  5,  col.  1     Edit.  Gcnevm,  an.  170G. 

t  "  All,  both  ancient  and  modrrn,  will,  I  think,  agree  with  me  that 
I'eter  may  be  called  Hisliop  of  Rome  in  a  less  strict  sense,  inasmuch  as 
111-  laid  the  foundations  of  this  Church,  and  rendered  it  illustrious  by  his 
martyrdom."  This  admissir)n  is  made  by  Cave,  lhou;T|i  he  questions 
whether  Peter  should  be  styled  IJishop  of  Home  in  a  strict  sense.  V  'i 
D* 


42  SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS  OF  THE  PRIMACY. 

by  St  Cyprian,  "  the  place  of  Peter,"*  by  St  Jerom,  "  the  chair 
of  Peter,"!  and  the  succession  from  Peter  in  that  See  is  avow- 
ed, by  St  Aiigustin,  to  be  one  of  the  great  evidences  of  truth 
which  retained  him  in  the  Catholic  communion.     "  I  am  kept," 
says  he,  "  by  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  very  See  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  to  whom  our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  in- 
trusted the  feeding  of  his  sheep,  down  to  the  present  bishop."! 
Ambrose,  the  master  of  Augustin,  styles  Peter  "  Bishop  of  the 
Roman   Church. "§     Whatever  share   the   Apostle  Paul  may 
have  had  in  the  government  of  that  Church,  it  must  have  ne- 
cessarily had  one  bishop,  since  the  general  practice  of  antiquity, 
and  the  positive  testimonies  of  the  ancients,  unanimously  teach 
that  there  can  be  but  one  bishop  of  one  Church.     To  suppose 
that  neither  Apostle   governed   it    as   bishop,  is  to  create  an 
anomaly  in  the  organization  of  the  churches,  by  leaving  one 
without  a  special  ruler.     In  whatever  way  we  view  the  matter, 
and  whatever  share  in  the  administration  we  may  ascribe  to  St 
Paul,  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the  heiress  of  both  apostles,  sanc- 
tified by  their  labours,  and  enriched  by  their  doctrine  and  their 
blood.     She  claims  all  the  privileges  and  powers  which  either 
enjoyed  or  exercised ;  and  if  she  rests  with  peculiar  emphasis 
on  those  of  Peter,  it  is  because  his  privileges  were  more  sub- 
lime, and  of  a   more  enduring   character,  than   those  of  the 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.     I  care  not  then  to  insist  on  the  ap- 
plication of  the  term  "  bishop,"  to  Peter  as  governor  of  the 
Roman  Church,  although  it  is  perfectly  applicable :  it  is  un- 
questionable that  he  governed  it,  at  least  in  his  apostolic  cha- 
racter, and  died  whilst  so  governing  it.     The  authority  with 
which  he  was  invested  was  a  fundamental  principle  of  Church 
organization,  which  could  not  cease  without  the  destruction  of 
the  Church  itself.     It  must  then  continue,  in  the  bishops  who 
succeed  him  in  the  government  of  that  Church,  over  which 
he  presided  up  to  the  time  of  his  martyrdom. 

*     S.  Cyprian,  Ep.  ad  Antonian.  t     Jerom.  ep,  ad  Damas. 

t     Aug.  1.  adv.  ep.  Man.  fundam.  C.  IV.  Tom.  VIll.,p  153. 
§     S.  Ambros.  1.  3  de  Sac.  c.  1,  §.  (5.  Tom.  II. 


LETTER  III. 

OBJECTIONS    FROM    SCRIPTURE    AGAINST    THE 
PRIMACY. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

Having  reviewed  the  Scriptural  evidence  of  the  Primacy, 
which  you  pass  over  rather  slightly,  it  is  but  just  to  meet  the  ob- 
jections which  you  derive  from  some  passages  of  Scripture.  You 
say  that  the  rock  was  the  Redeemer;  for  "  no  one  can  lay  ano- 
ther foundation,  but  that  which  is  laid,  whicii  is  Christ  Jesus." ' 
To  have  the  true  meaning  of  this  passage,  and  to  perceive  the 
weakness  of  the  objection  grounded  on  it,  the  context  must  be 
attended  to,  from  wliich  it  will  at  once  appear,  that  the  founda- 
tion of  which  St  Paul  speaks  is  different  from  that  mentioned 
by  Christ.  The  Apostle  addressing  the  Corinthians,  whom  he 
had  brought  to  tlie  knowledge  of  Cliristiaii  faith,  says:  *'You 
are  God's  building.  According  to  the  grace  of  God  that  is  given 
me,  as  a  wise  architect,  I  have  laid  the  foundation,  and  another 
buildclh  thereon.  But  let  every  man  take  heed  how  he  build- 
eth  thereupon.  For  no  man  can  lay  another  foundation,  but 
that  which  is  laid — which  is  Christ  Jesus.'*  The  Apostle, 
anxious  to  maintain  his  spiritual  children  in  the  integrity  of 
faith,  compares  them  to  a  building  erected,  by  his  own  hands, 
on  faith  in  our  divine  Redeemer;  and  he  declares  that  no  other 
foundation  can  be  laid.  In  Him  we  must  believe;  in  Him  we 
must  hope;  Him  in  all  things  we  must  obey;  for,  as  St  Peter 
expresses  the  same  idea  in  clearer  terms,  "there  is  not  salvation 
in  any  other;  for  there  is  no  other  name  under  heaven  given  to 

•  1  Cor.  ii.  11. 


44         OBJECTIONS  FROM  SCRIPTURE  AGAINST  THE  PRIMACY. 

men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved."*  This  is  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  St  Paul.t  The  text  has  no  relation  whatever  to  the  pro- 
mise of  Christ  to  Peter,  except  the  illustration  of  a  different 
truth  by  a  similar  image.  Christ  wished  to  signify  to  Peter  the 
reward  of  his  faith  by  the  authority  which  he  would  enjoy  in 
his  Church,  and  with  this  view  he  likened  the  Church  to  a 
building,  himself  to  an  architect,  Peter  to  a  rock  on  which  the 
foundation  of  the  building  would  be  laid.  The  similitude  is  apt 
and  expressive  in  both  cases,  but  confusion  is  necessarily  pro- 
duced when  the  two  similitudes  are  confounded  together,  and 
what  is  said  of  Christ  in  the  one  place,  where  he  is  represented 
as  the  foundation,  is  applied  to  him  in  the  other,  where  he 
speaks  of  himself  as  the  architect.  The  passages  are  parallel 
in  their  character,  but  different  in  their  object:  in  both,  the 
foundation  is  distinguished  from  the  architect.  Where  Paul  is 
the  architect,  Christ  is  the  foundation :  where  Christ  is  the 
architect,  he  makes  Peter  the  foundation.  Do  we  then  reject 
Christ  ?  God  forbid  !  He  is  for  us  also  the  foundation  of  faith, 
— the  basis  on  which  our  hopes  of  immortality  are  built.  Our 
sentiments  are  correctly  and  eloquently  expressed  by  one  of 
the  most  distinguished  of  Peter's  successors,  the  first  Leo,  with 
whose  name  posterity  has  associated  the  appellation  of  "  Great." 
Paraphrasing  the  address  of  Christ  to  Peter,  recorded  in  the 
sixteenth  chapter  of  St  Matthew,  he  says  :  "  As  my  Father  has 
manifested  my  divinity  to  thee,  I  make  known  to  thee  thy  dig- 
nity :  for  thou  art  Peter,  that  is,  as  I  am  the  inviolable  rock, 
the  corner-stone,  who  make  both  one, — I  the  foundation,  other 


*     Acts  iv.  12. 

t  The  rule  prescribed  by  the  Protestant  critic,  Gerard,  should  here 
be  attended  to,  45G  :  "  Every  term  should  be  considered  as  it  stands,  in 
the  proposition  of  which  it  makes  a  part,  and  explained,  not  by  itself, 
but  so  as  to  bring  out  the  real  sense  of  that  whole  proposition."  He 
shows  the  violation  of  this  rule  by  an  Antinomian,  who  should  under- 
stand the  rock  on  which  the  wise  man  builds  his  house.  Matt.  vii.  24, 
to  be  Christ,  the  Rock  of  Ages.  The  rule  is  equally  violated,  when  the 
rock,  of  which  Christ  speaks,  Matt.  xvi.  18,  is  understood  to  be  himself 
See  Gerard's  Institutes,  p.  134. 


DOMINATION  FORBIDDEN.  45 

than  wliich  no  one  can  lay — nevertlieless  thou  also  art  a  Rock, 
because  thou  art  strengthened  by  my  power,  so  that  what  things 
belong  to  me  by  nature,  are  common  to  thee  with  me  by  far- 
TiciFATioN."*  Every  prerogative  then  wjjich  we  acknowledge 
in  Peter  is  the  gift  of  his  bounty;  all  authority  emanates  from 
him.  In  fact,  Bishop  Marsh,  and,  after  him,  Bloomfield  ad- 
mit that  there  can  be  no  real  difficulty  in  reconciling  these  two 
passages,  because  Christ  and  Peter  are  called  the  foundation  in 
a  very  different  sense.  *'  The  Apostles,  generally,  are  in  other 
parts  of  the  New  Testament  called  the  foundation  on  which  the 
Cliurch  is  built  ;t  but  Peter  is  specially  called  such,  and  even 
designated  a  rock,  to  denote  his  peculiar  strength  and  connexion 
with  the  Church." 

You  adduce  various  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  pride  and 
domination  are  condemned,  and  humility  is  prescribed :  and  you 
assert  that  ♦'  all  these  instances  are  related  as  occurring  subse- 
quently to  the  gift  of  the  keys  to  Peter."  You  suppose,  that 
if  die  words  of  Christ  had  the  meaning  which  we  assign  them, 
he  would  have  reproved  his  disciples  when  contending  about 
superiority,  and  *'  have  reminded  them  that  he  had  constituted 
Peter  tiie  governor  and  chief  already."  Allow  me  to  observe, 
that  Peter  did  not  receive  the  power  which  was  promised  to 
him,  until  after  the  resurrection,  when  Christ  gave  him  the 
commission  to  feed  his  lambs  and  sheep.  It  is  not  wonderful 
that  the  AposUes  did  not  at  tliat  time  fully  understand  the  sub- 
lime promise  of  the  Saviour,  for,  as  yet,  they  were  slow  of  un- 
derstanding, and  had  no  adequate  idea  of  the  institutions  whicli 
Christ  meant  to  establish.  Already,  indeed,  they  saw  a  mark- 
ed preference  manifested  for  Peter,  since  Christ  paid  the  tri- 
bute for  him  as  well  as  for  himself,  and  gave  other  indications 
of  peculiar  favour:  but  he  was  known  to  cherish  a  tender  love 
for  John,  and  his  kindness  towards  all  rendered  it  still  a  matter 
of  (juestion  which  was  the  greatest  favourite  with  their  divine 
master.     He  took  occasion  from  this,  and  other  circumstances 

•     S.  Leo.  Maij.  Scrm.  3,  dc  a.ssurnptionc  sua  ad  I'ontificatuin. 

t     Bloomfield  Coin.  Matt,  xvi.,  and  quotes  Eph.ii.  20, and  Rev.  xxi  1-1. 


46        OBJECTIONS  FROM  SCRIPTURE  AGAINST  THE  PRIMACY. 

which  showed  his  disciples'  imperfection,  to  teach  them — 
notequahty,  but  liumility.  Thus,  when  the  mother  of  the  sons 
of  Zebedee  sought  for  her  children,  that  they  might  sit,  one  on 
his  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  his  left,  by  his  throne,  "  the 
ten  hearing  it  were  moved  with  indignation  against  the  two  bre- 
thren." He  called  them  to  him,  and  observed,  that  lordly  do- 
mination characterized  the  rulers  of  this  earth,  but  that,  if  they 
wished  to  be  great  in  his  sight,  they  should  humble  themselves, 
and  become  as  servants  to  each  other :  "  Even  as  the  Son  of 
man  came  not  to  be  ministered,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his 
life  a  redemption  for  many."*  In  this  surely  was  implied,  that 
there  was  to  be  amongst  them  a  difference  of  rank ;  but,  never- 
theless, that  the  highest  should  imitate  the  humility  of  their 
Lord  and  Master,  so  that  the  exercise  of  authority,  however 
great,  should  be  marked  by  kind  and  fraternal  feeling.  This 
divine  lesson  was  inculcated  by  Peter,  when,  addressing  his 
colleagues  in  the  sacred  ministry,  he  bade  them  "  feed  the  flock 
of  God"  entrusted  to  their  charge,  not  domineering  over  the 
portion  of  the  Lord's  inheritance  committed  to  them,  "  but 
being  made  a  pattern  of  the  flock  from  the  heart."!  The  exer- 
cise of  power  is,  in  all  circumstances,  to  be  tempered  with  hu- 
mility; but  the  power  is  not,  on  that  account,  less  real  or  effi- 
cacious. 

In  the  second  passage  objected  by  you,  Christ  forbids  pha- 
risaical  vanity  and  ostentation,  which  delights  in  "  salutations 
in  the  market-place,"  and  in  titles  of  distinction  :  "  be  not  you 
called  Rabbi.  For  one  is  your  master,  and  all  you  are  bre- 
thren.":}: If  this  passage  be  alleged  to  prove  that  no  one  of  the 
Apostles  was  superior  to  the  other,  it  may  be,  with  equal  pro- 
priety, used  to  show  that  the  Apostles  were  in  no  respect  supe- 
rior to  the  multitude,  for  the  discourse  was  not  addressed  to  the 
Apostles  alone,  but  "  to  the  multitude  and  to  his  disciples. "§ 
You  are  scarcely  prepared  for  this  perfect  equality.  You  admit 
superior  powers  in  the  Apostolic  college,  and  you  consequently 

*    Matt.  XX.  28.  t     1  Peter  V.  2,  3. 

t     Matt,  xxiii.  8.  §    Matt,  xxiii.  1. 


POWERS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  47 

cannot  urge  this  passage  farther  than  to  show  that  vanity  is  re- 
preliensible  in  all,  wheliier  they  he  the  tilled  dignitaries  of  the 
churcli,  or  the  less  conspicuous  members  of  the  laity. 

The  ninth  chapter  of  Luke  aflbrds  you  another  objection. 
"  There  entered  a  thought  into  them  which  of  them  should  be 
greater;"  and  their  divine  Master  "  took  a  child,  and  set  him 
by  him,  and  said  to  them  :  whosoever  shall  receive  this  child  in 
my  name,  receivelh  me:  and  whosoever  shall  receive  me,  re- 
ceiveth  him  that  sent  me.  For  he  that  is  the  least  among  you 
all,  he  is  the  greatest."*  The  Lord  thus  beautifully  insinuates 
humility,  which  is  the  best  disposition  for  elevation  to  the  high 
ollice  of  the  Apostolate.  He  says  nothing  to  exclude  the  supe- 
riority of  one  above  the  rest  in  dignity  or  rank  ;  but  teaches  all 
that  the  lowliest  in  station  may  be  greatest  in  merit  before  God, 
provided  he  be  profoundly  humble. 

The  objection  derived  from  the  twenty-second  chapter  of 
Luke  is  similar  to  that  which  you  have  before  advanced,  from 
the  twentieth  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  which  I  have  already 
explained.  It  regards  the  mode  in  which  superior  power  is  to 
be  exercised  :  "  he  who  is  the  greatest  among  you,  let  him  be  as 
the  least,  and  he  that  is  the  leader  as  he  that  servelh.  For 
which  is  greater,  lie  that  sittelh  at  table,  or  he  that  servelh  ?  Is 
not  he  that  sittelh  at  table  ?  But  I  am  in  the  midst  of  you,  as 
he  that  servelh. "t  There  was  then  a  leader,  there  was  one 
greatest  among  them,  but  he  was  to  imitate  Ilim  who  was  above 
all,  but  wIjo  nevertheless  humbled  himself  as  the  servant  of  all. 
He  sufliciently  indicated  the  leader,  when,  addressing  Peter  on 
that  occasion,  he  told  him  to  "  confirm  his  brethren. "J 

You  found  the  next  objection  on  tlie  twentieth  chapter  of  St 
John's  Gospel,  wherein  (Jhrist,  addressing  all  the  Apostles, 
says :  ♦♦  Peace  be  to  you.  As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  1  also 
send  you.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  (Jhost.  Wliose  sins  you  shall 
forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them;  and  whose  sins  you  shall  re- 
tain, they  are  retained.")     You  argue  that,  as  no  distinction  is 

•     Luke  xxii.  2G.  t     Ibid.  xxii.  S*). 

t     ibid.  3*J.  §     John.  XX. -JI. 


48        OBJECTIONS  FROM  SCRIPTURE  AGAINST  THE  PRIMACY. 

made  between  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles,  the  power  confer- 
red on  all  was  alike,  and  that  *'  as  the  character  of  his  office  is  not 
to  be  determined  by  the  time  when  it  was  first  promised,  but 
by  the  rights  actually  conferred,  it  seems  abundantly  evident 
that  this  passage  decides  the  whole  controversy."  There  might 
be  something  more  than  plausibility  in  this  reasoning,  had  the 
same  Evangelist  neglected  to  record  the  special  commission  to 
feed  the  lambs  and  sheep  of  Christ,  given  to  Peter  alone,  after 
a  thrice  repeated  protestation  of  loving  his  Lord  more  than  the 
others  loved  him.  Peter  received,  with  the  others,  the  power 
of  forgiveness,  which  he  and  they  were  to  exercise ;  but  sepa- 
rately and  apart  from  them,  he  received  the  pastoral  commission 
to  govern  all  the  sheep  of  Christ,  and,  as  the  vicegerent  and 
visible  representative  of  Christ,  to  be  the  one  shepherd  of  the 
one  fold.  The  character  of  his  office  is  determined  both  by  the 
promise,  which  was  special,  and  by  the  rights  actually  confer- 
red, which  fully  corresponded  with  the  sublime  promise.  Peter 
had  powers  common  to  the  whole  Apostolic  college ;  he  had, 
besides,  authority  peculiarly  his  own. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  Apostolic  commission  pre- 
sented no  obstacle  to  the  administration  of  a  particular  Church 
by  an  Apostle.  He  had  privilege  to  exercise  his  power  every 
where,  but  he  was  not  necessarily  obliged  to  be  witliout  any 
fixed  residence  or  See,  as  is  evident  from  the  case  of  the 
Apostle  James,  who  occupied  the  See  of  Jerusalem.  As  you 
here  promise  presently  to  prove  from  Irenaeus  that  Linus,  and 
not  St  Peter,  is  set  down  as  the  first  bishop  of  that  city,  it  is 
but  just  to  observe  that  you  labour  under  a  misconception  of 
that  writer's  meaning,  as  will  appear  when  we  shall  come  to 
the  examination  of  his  testimony. 

You  observe,  that  on  some  occasions  Peter  appears,  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  "  like  one  more  ruled  than  ruling."  The 
chief  instance  which  you  give  is,  that  when  the  conversion  of 
the  Samaritans,  through  the  ministry  of  Philip,  was  made 
known  to  the  Apostles  who  were  in  Jerusalem,  they  sent  to 
them  "  Peter  and  John,"*     But,  surely,  this  is  too  slight  a 

*     Acts  viii.  14. 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  40 

ground  for  questioning  the  superior  authority  of  Peter,  esta- 
blished by  so  many  and  such  strong  Scriptural  proofs.  A 
superior  cannot,  indeed,  be  authoritatively  sent  by  his  subjects, 
yet  he  is  said  sometimes  to  be  sent  when  he  is  induced  to  go 
at  their  solicitation.  Were  we  to  rely  on  a  similar  argument, — 
the  equivocal  meaning  of  a  word  ;  were  we  to  oppose  it  to 
solemn  and  clear  and  express  testimonies  of  Scripture,  convey- 
ing power  and  authority,  you  would  surely  regard  us  with  a 
feeling  of  pity,  if  not  of  indignation. 

After  the  baptism  of  Cornelius,  when  Peter  went  up  to 
Jerusalem,  they  who  were  of  llie  circumcision  disputed  against 
him,"  and  Peter  explains  the  wliolc  matter,  concluding  in 
the  17lh  verse  by  saying:  *'  Who  was  I,  that  I  could  oppose 
God?"  "Neither  he  nor  his  accusers  on  this  occasion,"  you 
observe,  **  seem  to  have  had  any  notion  of  his  superior  dignity." 
But  is  it  a  matter  of  surprise  that  a  people  so  attached  to  their 
religious  traditions  as  the  Jews,  and  so  recently  converted  to 
Christianity,  should  have  viewed  with  displeasure  a  measure 
so  novel,  and  so  repugnant  to  their  ideas,  and  should  have  been 
wanting  in  due  respect  for  the  auliiority  of  the  first  Pastor  ? 
You  need  only  call  to  mind  the  frequent  murmurings  of  their 
forefathers  against  Moses,  even  shortly  after  many  and  stu- 
pendous prodigies  had  convinced  them  that  he  was  the  chosen 
servant  of  (lod,  and  was  acting  in  obedience  to  the  divine  will. 
Peter  was  not  unconscious  of  iiis  authority,  but  did  not  deem 
it  unworthy  of  his  high  dignity  to  explain  the  motives  of  his 
conduct,  and  thus  take  away  from  their  weak  minds  the  occa- 
sion of  scandal  and  dissention.  'I'he  recognition  of  the  hio^h 
authority  of  l^elcr,  even  by  the  converts  from  Judaism,  as  well 
as  his  own  sense  of  that  authority,  is  manifest  from  the  history 
of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  of  which  I  have  already  treated. 
I  must  refer  you  to  my  remarks  for  the  solution  of  the  objec- 
tion which  you  seek  to  draw  from  it. 

You  mention,  as  something  unfavourable  to  the  prerogative 
of  Peter,   that  "  the  whole  of  liu;  remaining  chapters  of  the 

'    Arts  xi.  "2. 


50         OBJECTIONS  FROM  SCRIPTURE  AGAINST  THE  PRIMACY. 

book  of  the  Acts,  is  devoted  chiefly  to  the  labours  of  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  Peter  is  hardly  named  again." 
Is  it  possible  that  you  seriously  object  this  circumstance  ?  St 
Luke,  the  writer  of  the  Acts,  was  the  companion  of  Paul  in  his 
travels,  as  the  Apostle  himself  testifies.*  He  gives  a  com- 
pendium of  the  chief  events  which  marked  the  rise  of  the 
Church  until  the  conversion  of  Saul,  and  thence  confines  him- 
self, almost  exclusively,  to  the  subsequent  history  of  St  Paul, 
having  been  himself  an  eye  witness  of  many  of  the  events 
which  he  records. 

The  arguments  which  you  produce  to  prove  that  St  Paul 
-acknowledged  no  superior  authority  in  Peter,  are,  to  say  the 
least,  weak  indeed.  To  convince  the  Galatians  that  his  gospel 
was  divinely  revealed,  St  Paul  observes  that,  on  his  conversion, 
lie  had  not  gone  to  Jerusalem,  to  the  Apostles  who  had  pre- 
ceded him  in  the  faith :  but  what  he  adds  is  worthy  of  your 
most  serious  consideration:  "Three  years  after,  I  came  to 
Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  and  stayed  with  him  fifteen  days."t 
Can  we  suppose  that  this  was  a  visit  of  mere  courtesy,  and  not 
rather  an  official  act  of  respect  to  the  authority  of  the  prince  of 
the  Apostles,  with  whom  Paul  wished  to  consult  on  the  im- 
portant concerns  of  the  Church?  The  Greek  verb  suggests 
the  idea  of  consultation,  or  inquiry  .J  "  Peter,"  says  Chrysos- 
tom,  "  was  the  organ  and  prince  of  the  Apostles:  wherefore 
Paul  went  up  to  see  him  in  preference  to  the  rest."§  Cave 
himself,  as  you  have  seen,  believes  that  the  visit  was  made 
with  a  view  to  obtain  the  decision  of  the  controversy  about  the 
observance  of  the  ceremonial  law. 

The  reproof  given  by  St  Paul  to  Cephas, I|  is  alleged  by 
you,  after  most  Protestant  writers  on  the  subject,  as  evidence 
that  he  recognised  in  Peter  no  superior  authority.  The  Fathers, 
ho\yever,  discovered  in  it  nothing  more  than  the  liberty  w^hich 
an  inferior  may  use  in  admonishing  his  superior,  when  the 

*  2  Cor.  viii.  18.     Col.  iv.  14.    2  Tim.  iv.  11.     Philem.  24. 

t  Gal.  i.  18. 

t  <ri§«?A',  to  confer  with.  See  Jones's  Greek  Lexicon. 

§  S.  Chrys.  horn.  87  in  Joan.  ||     Gal.  ii.  11. 


CEPHAS  AT  ANTIOCH.  51 

conduct  of  the  latter  is  such  as  is  likely  to  bo  prrjudirial  to 
the  interests  of  truth.  No  station,  liowever  elevated,  places 
man  beyond  the  reacli  of  respectful  admonition,  or  even  strong 
reproof,  if  his  conduct  ilescrve  it.  "  Paul,"  says  Tcrtullian, 
*'  reproved  Peter,  for  no  other  reason,  however,  than  the  change 
of  his  mode  of  livinjj;,  wliich  he  varied  according  to  tlie  class  of 
persons  with  whom  he  associated,  not  for  any  corruption  of 
divine  truth."*  In  regard  to  this  fact,  Augustiu  ol)serves :  "a 
just  liberty  is  to  be  admired  in  Paul,  and  holy  humility  in 
Peter."t  ; 

You  avail  yourself  of  tiie  statement  of  St  Paul,  that  to"  him 
"  was  committed  the  Gosjiel  of  the  uncircumcision,  as  to  Peter 

*     Tertullian,  1.  v.  contra  Marcion,c.  3. 

t     Aujr.  Ep.  6^2.  n.  22.  Nov.  edit. 

t  I  have  granted  to  Bishop  Hopkins  that  Cephas  here  mentioned  is 
the  same  as  Peter,  as  I  do  not  wish  to  encumber  the  investigation 
with  a  question  of  a  mere  critical  character.  The  Fathers  of  the  Church 
generally  take  him  to  be  the  same,  but  in  a  question  of  this  kind,  totally 
independent  of  doctrine,  a  mistake  may  be  supposed  without  disrespect 
to  their  venerable  authority.  It  is  certain  that  Clement  of  Alexandria 
maintained  that  Cephas,  who  was  reproved  by  St  Paul,  was  one  of  the 
seventy  disciples,  and  Euscbius  has  recorded  this  testimony,  wiUiout 
any  indication  of  dissent.  Eusebius,  1.  i.  c.  12.  In  all  ages  liiis  sentiment 
of  Clement  has  had  advocates,  although  the  contrary  opinion  has  been 
always  more  general.  Among  modern  writers  the  learned  Feller,  in  his 
historical  dictionary,  manifestly  favours  the  less  generally  received 
opinion.  Hardouin  expressly  defends  it.  Kerkherdere  in  his  cojuitus 
noTus  de  Ccpfui  riprrhoiso,  published  at  Louvain  in  1713,  maintains  it, 
and  Molkcnbuhr,  in  17-;.'),  published  a  Scriptural  critical  dissertation  to 
the  same  effect.  The  authors,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  who  have 
confounded  the  two,  are  strangely  embarrassed  to  find  a  time  at  which 
the  reproof  of  Peter  can  be  supposed  to  have  happened,  some  placing  it 
before,  some  after  tlio  Council  of  Jerusalem.  The  simple  fact  seems  to 
be  that  Cephas,  one  of  the  disciples,  being  reproved  sharply  by  Paul  for 
tergiversation  of  conduct,  "  no  small  contest"  ensued,  which  led  to  the 
reference  to  Prter  and  James  and  their  colleagues  at  Jerusalem.  Tlic 
conduct  of  Peter  in  defending  his  reception  of  Cornelius  into  the 
Church,  and  his  bold  reproof  of  the  Judaizing  Christians  in  the  Council, 
pivc  us  a  view  of  his  character  totally  inconsistent  with  the  dissimula- 
tion of  the  weak  disciple. 


52  OBJECTIONS  FROM  SCRIPTURE  AGAINST  THE  PRIMACY. 

was  that  of  the  circumcision  ;"*  but  surely  you  know  that  these 
expressions  do  not  signify  that  the  exclusive  charge  of  Gentiles 
or  Jews  was  given  to  either  apostle.  The  universal  character 
of  the  apostolic  commission  regards  not  only  places,  but  classes 
of  men:  and  the  Apostle  only  intimates  that  the  chief  exercise 
of  his  own  ministry  was  to  be  among  the  Gentiles,  whilst  Pe- 
ter was  chiefly  to  exert  his  zeal  for  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.t 
Peter  was  the  first  to  receive  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church,  in 
the  person  of  Cornelius  and  his  family;  and  you  cannot  sup- 
pose that  he,  or  any  of  the  Apostles,  had  not  full  authority  to 
exercise  his  ministry  in  favour  of  ail  classes  of  men.  Besides, 
there  were  at  Rome  many  Jews,  amongst  whom  Peter  no  doubt 
especially  laboured,  whilst  Paul  more  particularly  devoted 
himself  to  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  Each,  as  opportunity 
was  offered,  extended  his  zeal  to  Jew  and  Gentile ;  but  the 
general  superintendance  of  all  still  remained  in  him  whom 
Christ  had  commanded  to  feed  his  lambs  and  sheep,  and  con- 
firm his  brethren. 

The  order  observed  by  St  Paul  in  the  mention  of  those  who 
were  regarded  as  pillars  of  the  church,  "James,  Cephas,  and 
John,"  seems  to  you  evidence  against  the  primacy  of  Peter. 
To  the  learned  Hardouin  and  others  it  appeared  to  favour  the 
opinion  that  Cephas  here  mentioned  was  a  disciple,  and  not 
the  Apostle ;  because  in  all  the  Gospels,  and  in  the  writings  of 
St  Paul,  wherever  Peter  is  named,  he  uniformly  precedes  all 
others,  unless  where  the  latter  place  is  the  more  honourable 
from  the  nature  of  the  subject,;}:  and  by  St  Matthew  he  is  ex- 
pressly styled  "  the  first."§     This,  though  the  least  proof  of 

*     Gal.  ii.  7. 

t  "  St  Peter  was  chiefly  but  not  entirely  occupied  by  the  Jews,  and 
St  Paul  chiefly,  but  not  wholly,  with  the  Gentiles,"  says  Bloomfield  on 
this  passage.     See  also  Synopsis  Grit,  in  locum. 

t     Gal.  i.  12  ,  iii.  22. 

§  Mat.  X.  2.  0  TT^atTo?,  "the  first."  That  this  is  not  a  mere  ordinal 
adjective  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  no  such  adjective  is  placed  after  the 
names  of  the  other  Apostles  enumerated  in  this  list.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  Evangelists  observe  no  order  injthe  catalogues  they  have  given, 
except  in  regard  of  two — Peter  and  Judas.     The  first  of  whom  always 


PREACHING  OF  PETER  AT  ROME.  53 

his  superiority,  afl'ords  no  slight  presumption  of  it.  Waiving, 
however,  whatever  advantage  might  he  derived  from  this 
circumstance,  I  shall  beg,  in  reply  to  your  objection,  to 
state  that  the  name  of  Cephas  is  altogether  wanting  in  tliis 
place  in  a  mo:it  ancient  manuscript,  which  Grotius  judges  to 
be  correct.*  Moreover  the  incidental  mention  of  the  name 
of  the  Apostle,  without  regard  to  the  precedency  of  his  office, 
cannot  render  questionable  his  authority. 

You  labour  to  prove  that  Paul,  and  not  Peter,  was  the  first 
founder  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  you  do  not  hesitate  to 
assert  that  'on  this  point  the  book  of  the  Acts  is  clear  and  posi- 
tive.' But,  sir,  all  that  is  clear  from  that  divine  history  is  that 
Paul  was  brought  to  Rome  in  chains,  and  that  during  his  stay 
there,  whicli  lasted  two  years,  he  instructed  those  who  liad 
recourse  to  him  at  his  own  hired  lodginji.t  Before  he  had 
seen  that  city,J  he  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which 

is  placed  at  the  head  of  the  catalogue ;  tlic  last  uniformly  occupies  the 
lowest  place.  The  eloquent  bishop  of  Mcaux  presents,  at  one  view,  the 
various  circumstances  in  which  Peter  appears  foremost  in  the  Gospels : 
"  Peter,"  says  he,  "  appears  the  first  on  all  occasions  :  tlie  first  to  confess 
the  faith  ;  the  first  to  express  his  obligation  of  love  ;  the  first  of  all  the 
Apostles  who  saw  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  as  he  was  th«'  first  to 
bear  testimony  to  this  fact  before  all  the  people.  We  find  him  first, 
when  there  was  question  of  filling  up  the  number  of  the  Apostles ;  the 
first  wh(j  confirmed  tiie  faith  by  a  miracle,  tiie  first  to  convert  the  Jews, 
the  first  to  receive  the  Gentiles;  in  short,  every  thing  occurs  to  estab- 
lish Ixis  supremacy.  The  power  divided  among  many,  imports  its  re- 
striction :  conferred  on  one  alone,  ozcr  all  and  without  exception,  it  bears 
the  evidence  of  its  plenitude.  All  receive  the  same  power,  but  not  in 
the  same  degree,  nor  to  the  same  extent.  Jesus  Christ  commences  by 
the  chief,  and  in  the  person  of  the  chief  developes  all  his  power — in 
order  that  we  should  learn  that  the  ecclesiastical  authority,  being  origi- 
nally centred  in  one  individual,  has  been  diffused  only  on  the  condition 
that  it  sliould  always  be  reflected  back  on  the  princij)]e  of  its  unity  ;  and 
that  all  they  who  share  in  it  should  be  inseparably  connected  with  that 
See,  which  is  the  common  centre  of  ail  churclics." — Bossuet.  Disc,  sur 
lunit^  de  I'Eglise,  premiere  partie. 

'     See  Critic.  Sac.  Synop.  in  hunc  locum. 

t     Acts  xxviii.  30. 

I  Five  or  six  years  before  his  imprisonment,  about  the  year  of  C^hriul 
E* 


54  OBJECTIONS  FROM  SCRIPTURE  AGAINST  THE  PRIMACY. 

he  declares  his  earnest  desire  to  see  them,  to  be  consoled  by 
the  evidence  of  their  faith,  the  fame  of  which  had  already 
spread  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  empire.*  You  have  fallen 
into  the  strange  mistake  of  quoting  this  epistle  in  proof  of  the 
success  of  his  preaching  in  that  city,  whilst  he  declares  in  it 
that  he  had  never  been  there  :  "  I  would  not  have  you  ignorant, 
brethren,  that  I  have  often  purposed  to  come  to  you  (and  have 
been  prevented  hitherto),  that  I  might  have  some  fruit  among 
you  also,  even  as  among  other  nations."! 

You  complain  that  "  after  all  this  St  Paul  should  be  made  to 
act  a  secondary  part  to  St  Peter  in  founding  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  that  the  Sacred  Oracles  should  thus  become  subor- 
dinate to  the  testimony  of  tradition."  But  it  is  manifest,  from 
the  passage  of  Scripture  just  quoted,  that  St  Paul  was  not  the 
original  founder  of  that  Church,  and  that  it  was  flourishing  and 
celebrated  before  his  eye  had  ever  rested  on  that  magnificent 
city.  Tradition  comes  to  our  aid  on  a  point  not  stated  in  Scrip- 
ture, by  informing  us  who  it  was  that  first  entered  the  seat  of 
Paganism  to  preach  salvation  in  the  name  of  the  crucified  Re- 
deemer :  it  does  not  set  aside  the  Sacred  Oracles,  but  gives  us 
information  for  which  they  had  prepared  us.  Chrysostom,  in 
regard  to  the  establishment  of  religion  by  Peter  in  the  capital 
of  the  empire,  observes :  "  The  fisherman  Peter,  because  he 
practised  virtue,  and  occupied  the  imperial  city,  shines,  even 
after  death,  brighter  than  the  sun. "J  TertuUian,  at  the  close  of 
the  second  century,  speaks  of  those  whom  Peter  baptized  in 
the  Tyber.§ 

You  "  remind  us,  that  in  the  two  epistles  of  St  Peter,  there 
is  not  one  word  of  intimation  on  the  supreme  rule  and  govern- 
ment supposed  to  be  conferred  on  him."  But  it  is  enough 
that  he  writes  to  his  colleagues  in  the  ministry  with  the  dignity 
and  authority  that  becomes  the  prince  of  the  Apostles ;  and  such 

57  or  58.  See  Bloomfield,  Notes  on  the  Acts  and  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans :  also  Macknight  on  the  Epistles.   See  also  Cave,  Saec,  Apost. 

^     Rom.  i.  e.  t     V.  13. 

t     S.  Joan.  Chry.  in  Ps.  48,  p.  370,  Tom.  I. 

§     Tertull.  1.  de  bapt. 


SCRIPTURAL  ALLUSIONS.  55 

is  the  judgment  which  an  eminent  Protestant  critic  has  passed 
on  his  style.*  He  speaks  as  one  to  wliom  pastors  and  people 
were  alike  entrusted ;  and  whilst,  with  the  humility  which  his 
divine  Master  inculcated,  he  regards  himself  as  a  fellow-labourer, 
he  prescribes  to  the  dignitaries  of  the  Church  the  spirit  in  which 
they  should  exercise  their  power.t 

In  fine,  you  ask  us,  as  you  delight  in  interrogatories,  "  have 
we  never  wondered  that  the  supremacy  of  Peter  has  been 
passed  by  in  all  the  Epistles  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles?" 
We  reply  that  we  have  no  cause  for  this  supposed  wonder,  as 
we  see  ils  exercise  very  distinctly  marked  in  the  Acts,  and  its 
divine  origin  strongly  declared  in  the  Gospels.  Great,  indeed, 
is  our  astonishment,  and  deep  our  regret,  that  many  read  these 
divine  writings  and  perceive  not  these  truths,  but  prefer  vain 
conjectures  and  weak  reasonings  to  the  plain  and  solemn 
words  of  Jesus  Christ.  Perhaps,  sir,  you  may  not  have  per- 
mitted your  attention  to  be  directed  to  the  various  passages  in 
the  Gospels,  in  which  the  Primacy  of  Peter  is  indirectly,  but 
significantly  intimated.  ♦'  Is  the  Church,"  says  St  Francis  de 
Sales, J  "  likened  unto  a  house  ?  It  is  placed  on  the  foundation 
of  a  rock,  which  is  Peter.  Will  you  represent  it  under  the 
figure  of  a  family  ?  You  behold  our  Redeemer  paying  the 
tribute  as  ils  master,  and  after  him  comes  Peter  as  his  repre- 
sentative. Is  the  Church  a  bark?  Peter  is  its  pilot;  and  it  is 
our  Redeemer  who  instructs  him.  Is  the  doctrine  by  which 
we  are  drawn  from  the  gulf  of  sin  represented  by  a  fisher's 
net?  It  is  Peter  who  casts  it:  it  is  Peter  who  draws  it;  the 
other  disciples  lend  their  aid  ;  but  it  is  Peter  that  presents  the 
fishes  to  our  Redeemer.  Is  the  Church  represented  by  an 
embassy  ?  Saint  Peter  is  at  its  head.  Do  you  prefer  the  figure 
of  a  kingdom  ?  Saint  Peter  carries  its  keys.  In  fine,  will  you 
have  it  shadowed  under  the  symbol  of  a  flock  and  a  fold  ? 
Saint  Peter  is  the  shepherd  and  universal  Pastor  under  Jesus 
Christ." 

•     Grotius.     Sec  Synops.  Grit.  Proleg.  Ep.  1,  Petri. 

t     1  Ep.  Peter,  c.  v. 

t     Controvcrses  de  S.  Franc,  de  Sales,  disc.  42. 


LETTER  IV. 
SPURIOUS    DOCUMENTS. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

From  the  Scriptural  proofs  of  the  Primacy  of  Peter,  you  pro- 
ceed to  the  ancient  canons,  styled,  of  the  Jipo sties  ;  and  you  ob- 
serve, that  in  them  no  evidence  of  it  is  discoverable.  That  they 
are  not  regarded  by  us  as  the  true  productions  of  the  Apostles, 
you  candidly  acknowledge  ;  and  hence  I  can  see  no  reason  why 
you  should  bring  them  forward  in  this  investigation,  especially 
as  all  learned  Protestants  agree  with  us  in  rejecting  them.* 
Allowing  you,  however,  the  privilege  of  using  them,  you  can- 
not find  a  single  expression  in  them  which  impugns  the  Pri- 
macy of  Peter  and  his  successors.  The  prohibition  of  the  trans- 
fer of  bishops  from  one  see  to  another,  unless  by  the  judgment 
and  earnest  recommendation  of  many  bishops,  does  not  prove 
that  there  was  then  no  Primate,  because  the  present  discipline 
requires  his  consent  for  so  important  a  change ;  this  being  a 
matter  entirely  dependent  on  positive  enactment.  In  the  first 
three  ages  espef*ially,  when  persecution  raged,  the  communi- 
cation between  the  prelates,  scattered  abroad  over  the  empire, 
and  even  beyond  its  limits,  was  necessarily  difficult;  and  it 
cannot  be  matter  of  surprise,  that  recourse  to  the  chief  Pastor 
was  enjoined  only  in  cases  of  vital  importance  to  the  general 
interests  of  the  Church.  Besides,  the  See  of  Alexandria,  found- 
ed by  Mark,  the  disciple  of  Peter,  and  that  of  Antioch,  founded 
by  Peter  himself,  had  extensive  jurisdiction,  afterwards  deno- 

*  See  Cave  Sa^c.  Ap.  Op.  Sup.  p.  19.  Gen.  cd.  He  thinks  that  they 
were  collected  together  chiefly  from  the  usage  and  regulations  of  the 
Church  about  the  end  of  the  second  age. 


CANONS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  57 

minated  patriarchal,  according  to  the  beautiful  order  established 
from  the  comraencement.  The  general  affairs  of  these  vast 
districts  were  committed  fully  to  their  authority,  as  appears  by 
the  sixtli  canon  of  Nice.  If  the  bishops  of  the  east,  whose  dis- 
cipline is  thought  to  be  represented  by  tiiose  canons,  authorized 
episcopal  translations,  whenever  judged  expedient  by  many 
neighbouring  bishops,  it  was  an  enactment  no  wise  derogatory 
to  the  supremacy  of  Peter's  chair.  At  a  later  period,  the  ex- 
pediency of  further  restrictions  to  prevent  ambition  became 
manifest,  whilst  the  facilities  of  communication  were  increased, 
and  the  patriarchal  sees  having  failed,  occasion  was  oflercd  for 
the  more  direct  and  frequent  exercise  of  pontifical  authority, 
even  in  the  most  distant  provinces.  An  absolute  prohibition 
of  all  translations  has  been  made,  whereby  they  became  unlaw- 
ful, except  by  the  dispensation  of  the  general  ruler  of  the 
Church.  The  thirty-third  canon  exhibits  that  order  which  is 
to  be  maintained  in  the  respective  portions  of  the  Christian 
world  ;  the  bishops  of  each  province  or  nation  looking  up  with 
reverence  to  their  local  head,  or  metropolitan,  as  continues  to 
be  enjoined  even  unto  this  day:  but  who  can  thence  conclude 
that  there  is  no  common  head,  whom  even  metropolitans  should 
reverence  and  obey  ?  In  the  enactment  of  canons,  the  Coun- 
cils of  the  three  first  ages,  which  were  all  local,  intended  to  re- 
gulate local  concerns,  not  general  discipline  ;  and  consequently 
legislated  without  the  remotest  intention  to  interfere  with  the 
general  organization  of  the  Church.  In  this  spirit,  provincial 
Councils  were  to  be  held  twice  a  year,  and  local  controversies 
were  therein  examined  and  determined  :  but  when  the  general 
interests  of  religion  were  at  stake,  their  acts  were  sent  to  the 
chief  guardian  of  the  divine  deposite,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  case 
of  Paul  of  Samosata,  and  in  the  celebrated  controversies  con- 
cerning baptism  administered  by  heretics,  and  the  necessity  of 
grace.  These  fretjuent  Councils  were  advisable,  in  consequence 
of  thediflicullies  for  which  no  legislation  had  yet  provided,  and 
were  practicable  among  neighbouring  bishops,  whose  dioceses 
were  generally  small.  Such  Councils  are  still  prescribed  to  be 
lield,  at  least  every  third  year,  and,  within  the  last  ten  years, 


58  SPURIOUS  DOCUMENTS. 

they  have  been  thrice  held  in  our  ecclesiastical  province.  Thus 
our  practice  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  the  early  a^es,  and 
neither  interferes  with  the  prerogative  of  the  Pope.  The  judg- 
ment of  bishops,  accused  of  grievous  delinquency,  was  some- 
times left  to  their  colleagues  of  the  province,  except  the  bishops 
of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  whose  patriarchal  dignity  gave  them 
the  privilege  of  being  judged  by  the  Pope ;  but  when  aggrieved, 
they  raised  their  voice  from  the  East,  and  from  the  West,  to 
the  father  of  bishops,  whose  power  was  often  exerted  in  their 
behalf.  The  extinction  of  those  patriarchates,  and  a  desire  to 
protect  the  episcopal  dignity  from  unjust  and  rash  aggression, 
subsequently  induced  the  reservation  of  all  such  cases  to  the 
mature  examination  and  impartial  judgment  of  one  whose  ele- 
vation raises  him  above  the  partial  influences  to  which  other 
bishops  might  be  exposed. 

I  have  thus  offered  an  explanation  of  difficulties  which  have 
no  direct  bearing  on  the  subject  of  our  investigation,  and  which 
I  could  have  justly  passed  over  without  notice,  because  taken 
from  supposititious  documents.  Your  assertion,  that  these  ca- 
nons are  directly  adverse  to  our  doctrine,  is  surely  not  easy  to 
be  sustained.  I  hope  you  now  see  how  perfectly  they  har- 
monize with  the  admission  of  a  governing  power,  watching 
over  the  general  interests  of  religion,  and  interfering  more  or  less 
in  local  concerns,  according  to  peculiar  exigencies  and  circum- 
stances. As  to  our  evading  evidence,  as  you  insinuate,  it  is  as 
far  from  our  thoughts  as  it  is  foreign  from  our  practice  to  seek 
it  in  spurious  sources. 

In  your  progress  among  these  impure  sources,  you  next  come 
to  the  *•  Apostolic  Constitutions,"  which,  although  confessedly 
spurious,  you  bring  forward  to  bear  evidence  against  us,  de- 
claring that  "  you  have  searched  them  in  vain  for  any  trace  of 
our  doctrine  on  the  Primacy."  1  regret.  Right  Reverend  Sir, 
that  you  should  have  occupied  yourself  in  examining  docu- 
ments of  this  character,  from  which  no  conclusive  evidence 
could,  in  any  case,  be  derived ;  but,  as  I  am  obliged  to  follow 
you  in  the  path  you  have  chosen,  I  will  proceed,  although  re- 
luctantly, to  consider  the  justness  of  your  conclusions,  ^rn  n 


DECRETALS  OF    ISIDORE.  59 

what  is  or  is  not  contained  in  these  unimportant  writings.  You 
observe  that  these  Constitutions  apply  to  all  bishops,  in  the  plural 
form,  the  very  language  addressed  to  Peter.  This  is  a  niislakc. 
The  words  which  you  cite  are  those  which  were  addressed  to 
all  the  Apostles.*  No  where  do  you  find  all  the  bishops  styled 
the  rock  on  which  Christ  built  his  Church.  Even  from  these 
spurious  decrees  the  pre-eminence  of  Peter  is  apparent.  They 
are  drawn  up  chiefly  in  his  name,  and  he  is  represented  as 
speaking  throughout  the  most  of  them.  He  is  named  and  styled 
first,  as  is  apparent  from  the  passages  which  you  quote,  in  the 
translation  of  one  of  which  you  have  rendered  ihis  particularity 
less  apparent  to  the  reader.  The  text  should  be  thus  translated: 
"  I  therefore  tbe  first,  Peter  say  ;"  which  you  have  rendered  : 
**  I  therefore  Peter  say,  first. "t  Wiicn  Peter  and  Paul  are 
united  in  the  decree,  the  precedency  of  Peter  is  still  maintained : 
•*  I  Peter,  and  I  Paul,  ordain. "J 

You  have,  at  last,  reached  a  class  of  spurious  documents 
which  you  avow  are  highly  favourable  to  the  claims  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  the  decretals  of  Isidore  xMercator.  You  dwell 
on  these  with  peculiar  emphasis;,  and  not  only  do  you  charge 
the  forgery  of  them  on  Kiculphus,  bishop  of  Moguntum,  about 
the  year  787,  but,  at  one  fell  swoop,  you  make  the  Popes  ac- 
complices of  the  fraud  by  their  countenance  and  sanction. 
The  compliment  you  pay  to  the  Catholic  literati  of  the  present 
day  for  their  honourable  rejection  of  these  false  decrees,  but 
badly  compensates  for  the  wound  which  you  endeavour  to  in- 
flict on  the  religion  which  they  have  defended,  when  you  repre- 
sent bishops  and  Popes  as  *'  paltering  with  every  principle  of 
truth,  whilst  they  boasted  of  infallibility."  The  facts  of  the  case, 
however,  do  not  warrant  these  reproaches.  The  collection 
was  not  certainly  framed  at  Home,  but  in  Germany:  and  its 
author  is  still  problematic,  though  you  unhesitatingly  pronounce 
liim  to  have  been  a  bishop,     'i'lic  literary  fraud  did  not  consist 

•     Matt,  xviii.  18. 

f     TTfmroi  «r  »>»'  fn/jii  riiT^sf.     **  Ego  igitur  primus  Tetrus  dico. 

t     E^M  niTjic  «,  iyei  Ilai/Aoc  Ji*rx((o/unfiit.    Const.  1.  viii.  c.  33. 


00  SPURIOUS  DOCUMENTS. 

in  forging  the  documents  altogether,  with  a  view  to  introduce 
new  doctrines,  or  a  new  system  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  for  the 
calvinist  Blondell  h'mself  acknowledges  that  genuine  docu- 
ments were  used  as  the  materials  of  this  imposture ;  whilst 
false  inscriptions  and  clumsy  combinations  gave  to  the  collec- 
tion an  air  of  remote  antiquity.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  "the 
Apostolic  Constitutions,"  which  you  have  read  with  intense 
interest,  and  which  you  describe  as  rich  in  doctrine,  in  elo- 
quence, and  in  forms  of  devotion,  have  been  used  freely  by  the 
compiler  of  these  false  decretals.  Large  extracts  are  taken 
from  them,  sometimes  word  for  word,  sometimes  with  some 
slight  variation,  and  given  in  the  name  of  some  Pope  of  the 
first  three  centuries.  The  Recognitions  of  Clement,  another 
work  of  the  same  spurious  character,  was  also  used  by  Isidore  ; 
and  even  works  of  undoubted  authenticity,  such  as  the  writings  of 
Saints  Leo  and  Gregory,  were  employed  in  the  same  manner.  You 
ask:  *'  does  not  the  existence  of  such  a  fraud  bring  a  dark  cloud 
upon  the  very  character  of  the  claim  itself?"  I  answer  confi- 
dently, it  does  not.  As  well  might  an  unbeliever  argue  against 
the  divine  character  of  the  Christian  religion,  because  spurious 
gospels  and  other  literary  frauds  were  circulated  at  a  very  early 
period  by  some  whose  zeal  was  not  according  to  knowledge. 
If  you  can  speak  in  raptures  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  ac- 
knowledged by  all  to  be  a  literary  imposture,  why  are  you  so 
vehement  in  your  invectives  against  the  compilation  of  Isidore, 
founded  in  a  great  measure  on  these  Constitutions,  or  on  w^orks 
undoubtedly  authentic?  You  say,  that  this  imposture  was  exe- 
cuted by  a  bishop  ;  but  surely  you  must  know  that  this  is  quite 
uncertain  :  you  add  that  it  was  patronised  by  successive  Popes ; 
but  you  are  aware  that  the  usage  of  three  centuries  had  given 
the  decretals  the  force  of  law  before  the  Popes  admitted  them 
into  the  body  of  laws  used  in  the  Roman  Church.  Nicholas  I., 
in  rebuking  Hincma,  bishop  of  Rheims,  for  having  rejected 
them,  assumed,  as  certain,  the  fact  of  their  being  such  as  they 
were  represented, — the  decrees  of  the  early  PontiflJs,  whose 
authority  was  not  dependent  on  their  insertion  in  the  general 
collection  of  tlie  canons :  but  he  had  not  examined,  and  did  not 


DECRETALS  OF  ISIDORE.  61 

pronounce,  on  the  alleged  fact  of  their  aullienlicily.      If  you 
will  take  llie  pains  of  comparing  the  decretals  with  their  sources, 
you  will  lind  how  very  easy  it  was,  at  a  lime  when  critical  in- 
quiry was  almost  unknown,  to  he  mistaken  in  regard  to  a  fad 
of  this  nature.     But  there  are  documents,  the  authenticity  of 
which  is  admitted  by  the  most  enlightened  critics,  not  excepting 
those  adverse  to  our  faith,  which  so  fully  establish  the  Primacy 
and  its  privileges,  that  1  am  almost  teni])ted  to  imitate  your 
language,  and  tell  you   that  they  force  a  sigh  of  deep  regret 
over  the  shame  of  men  who,   by  ascribing  the  origin  of  the 
pontifical  privileges  to  these  false  decretals,   trifle   with   every 
principle  of  truth,  wiiilsi  they  boast  of  impartiality.     You  say 
that  '*  it  is  undf.iicd  and  undeniable  that  forgeries  so  extensive 
were  actually  palmed  upon  the  churches  for  many  ages,  by  the 
successors  of  Nicholas  the  1st."     The  decretals  of  which  you 
speak  being  presented  by  their  author,  presumed  to  be  Bene- 
dictus  Levita,  in  connexion  with  authentic  decrees  and  canons, 
got  credence  and  currency  first  in  Germany,  where  they  were 
contrived,  afterwards  in  France,  and  subsequently  in    Rome 
itself,    wIk'm   usage  had  given  them   the  force  of  law.     They 
were  forgeries,  because  ascribed  to  the  ancient  Popes  :  but  they 
were  for  the  most  part  the  expression  of  primitive  faith  and  of 
the  received  discipline  of  the  Church.     The  question  of  their 
authorship  was  a  matter  of  minor  importance,  when  their  con- 
formity to  primiiive  tradition  was  known  in  regard  to  the  great 
principles  of  faith,  and   the  organization  of  the  Church  ;   and 
their   suitableness    to   existing   circumstances    in    disciplinary 
regulations    was    proved    by    experience.       It    mattered    little 
whether  a  decree  purporting  to  be  of  Pope  Fabian  contained 
his  sentiments  and  injunctions,  or  those  of  St  Leo,  St  Celes- 
tine,  or  St  Gregory,  from  whose  works  the  compiler  borrowed 
his  materials  :   and  the  prerogatives  of  the  Apostolic  See,  as 
explained  by  Innocent  and  Siricius,  were  equally  sacred,  as 
when  declared  by  Evaristus  or  Alexander,     'i'he  Popes,  who 
admitted  these  decretals  into  tlie  body  of  canon  law,  after  they 
had  been  j-lsewhere  adopted  during  three  centuries,  did  not 
study  the  inlercols  of  their  See,  so  much  as  uniformity  of  ilis- 

F 


62  SPURIOUS  DOCUMENTS. 

cipline.  The  special  object  of  the  contriver  of  the  fraud  was 
most  probably  to  shield  bishops  against  their  accusers,  for  to 
this  much  of  what  may  be  considered  original  in  the  decretals 
is  directed.  The  scheme  of  imposition  was  certainly  not  con- 
cocted by  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  nor  can  a  shadow  of  evidence 
be  offered  of  this  injurious  assertion.  In  the  progress  of  this 
work  I  shall  have  occasion  to  adduce  documents  of  undoubted 
authenticity,  long  prior  to  the  ninth  century,  which  gave  birth 
to  the  false  decretals  ;  and  I  shall  prove  from  them  that  the 
Primacy,  with  great  amplitude  of  prerogative,  was  acknowledged 
in  all  ages.  For  the  present  I  shall  give  you  one  specimen 
from  the  false  decretals,  with  reference  to  the  genuine  docu- 
ments which  have  been  copied  or  imitated.  A  letter  purport- 
ing to  be  of  Pope  Eusebius,  directed  to  the  bishops  of  Tuscia 
and  Campania,  is  found  in  the  collection  of  Isidore.  The 
exordium  is  with  some  slight  variation  a  copy  of  the  com- 
mencement of  the  genuine  letter  of  Pope  Hormisdas  to  all 
the  bishops  of  Spain,  written  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
century:  the  continuation  is  borrowed  from  the  letter  of  John, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  to  Hormisdas,  in  which  the  authority 
of  the  Hol}^  See  is  set  forth  in  the  strongest  terms.  I  willingly 
forego  the  advantage  to  be  derived  from  the  view  of  the  Papal 
prerogative  given  by  the  pseudo-Eusebius  :  but  is  not  the  loss  of 
two  centuries  in  date  amply  compensated  by  the  weight  of 
authority  derived  from  the  acknowledgment  of  one  who  might 
be  considered  most  likely  to  question  the  privileges  of  the 
Bishop  of  ancient  Rome  ?  Hear  then  John  of  Constantinople, 
giving  an  account  of  his  faith  to  Hormisdas.  "The  first  thing 
necessary  for  salvation  is  to  observe  the  rule  of  sound  faith, 
and  to  deviate,  in  no  respect,  from  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers, 
for  the  sentence  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  cannot  be  disre- 
garded :  *  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  shall  build  my 
Church.'  What  was  said  is  proved  by  the  event:  for  the 
Catholic  religion  is  always  inviolably  maintained  in  the  Apos- 
tolic See.  Being  desirous,  therefore,  not  to  fall  away  from 
this  faith,  and  following  in  all  things  the  decrees  of  the  Fathers, 
we   anathematize   all   heresies.     Wherefore,   following  in  all 


DECRETALS  OF  ISIDORE.  63 

tilings  the  Aposlolii;  Sec,  we  also  preach  all  things  decreed  by 
it:  and  for  that  reason  I  hope  iluit  I  shall  he  united  with  you 
in  the  communion  of  that  laith  which  is  proclaimed  hy  the 
Apostolic  See,  in  which  is  the  entire  and  perfect  solidity  of 
the  Christian  religion.  We  promise  that  hereafter  the  names 
of  such  as  are  separated  IVoiii  the  communion  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,  that  is,  such  as  do  not  in  all  things  harmonize  with 
the  Apostolic  See,  shall  not  be  recited  in  the  celebration  of 
the  sacred  mysteries."*  Compare  this  with  the  false  decretal, 
and  say  candidly,  whether  the  clumsy  contrivance  could  have 
been  needed  to  establish  the  rights  of  the  Apostolic  See.t 

Candour  then  will  admit  that  the  compilation  of  Isidore, 
changed  nothing  in  the  principles  of  the  Church,  or  in  the  or- 
ganization of  the  hierarchy,  and  induced  few,  if  any,  variations 
in  the  established  discipline,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  very 
fact  of  the  success  of  the  imposture.  In  no  age  can  men  be  so  far 
duped  as  to  surrender,  without  reluctance,  their  acknowledged 
rights  to  any  claimant.  As  well  might  an  impostor  hope  to 
change  the  principles  of  common  law,  by  the  pretended  dis- 
covery of  Dome-day  book,  or  of  the  Code  of  Edgar,  or  of  Ed- 
ward, as  Isidore  could  expect,  even  in  the  ninth  century,  to 
effect  any  essential  change  in  the  organization  or  polity  of  the 
Church,  by  the  pretended  decretals  of  the  Popes  of  the  first 
three  centuries,  which,  even  if  authentic,  would  liave  been 
disregarded  as  obsolete,  had  not  actual  usage  sustained  them. 
The  belief  of  the  divine  institution  of  the  Primacy,  so  clearly 
expressed  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  was  deeply  seated  in  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  the  faithful  long  before  the  days  of  Isidore, 
as  was  solemnly  declared  four  centuries  before  by  the  Council 
of  Carthage. J 

•     Act.  Cone.  Hard.  Tom.  II.  lulT. 

t     Ibid.  Tom.  I.  col.  241. 

;  Kp.  17(5.  oliin.  1)2,  p.  (522,  Tom.  II.  op.  Aug.  cd  Ven.,  "  arhilrainur — 
aucloritati  sanctitatis  tucc  dc  sanctarum  scripturarum  aucloritatc  dc 
pompta;  fncilius  cos  ense  ccssuros"  ad  Innocent. 


LETTER   V. 
APOSTOLIC    FATHERS   AND   IRENiEUS. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

From  the  examination  of  spurious  works,  we  pass  to  the  ge- 
nuine writings  of  those  venerable  men,  who,  from  their  close 
connexion  with  the  Apostles  and  the  Apostolic  age,  are  styled 
Apostolic  Fathers.  They  claim  our  respect,  from  the  charac- 
ter of  their  authors,  the  station  they  occupied  in  the  Church, 
the  sanctity  of  their  lives,  and  their  sufferings  for  religion.  You 
observe,  that  *'  nothing  positive  can  be  derived  from  them  on 
the  point  in  question:"  yet  you  seek  to  make  them  appear  ad- 
verse to  the  Primacy.  Thus,  you  object  that,  "  in  one  of  the 
epistles  of  Ignatius,  addressed  to  the  Romans,  his  entire  silence 
on  the  supposed  pre-eminence  of  their  Church,  and  the  derived 
supremacy  of  Peter,  looks  altogether  adverse  to  your  claims." 
Yet  he  is  not  altogether  silent.  The  address  of  his  epistle  is 
strongly  expressive  of  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Roman  Church. 
It  runs  thus  :  "  Ignatius,  also  called  Theophorus,  to  the  Church 
that  has  obtained  mercy  through  the  magnificence  of  the  most 
higli  Father,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  his  only  begotten  Son ;  the 
Church,  beloved  and  enlightened  through  his  will,  who  wills 
all  things  that  are  according  to  the  charity  of  Jesus  Christ  our 
God  ;  which  PRESIDES  in  the  place  of  the  Roman  region, 
being  worthy  of  God,  most  comely,  deservedly  blessed,  most 
celebrated,  properly  organized,  most  chaste,  and  PRESIDING 
in  charity,  having  the  law  of  Christ,  bearing  the  name  of  the 
Father."  I  know  not  in  what  more  emphatic  language  the  di- 
vinely bestowed  privileges  and  pre-eminence  of  the  church 
WHICH  PRESiDi: s  could  be  expressed.     The  source  of  its  prero- 


K.NATH  .S  AM)  CLEMKNT.  05 

galives  is  also  iiulicaled  in  llie  boily  of  llie  Idler,  in  wlut-li  allu- 
sion is  made  to  its  I'oinulation  by  Peter  and  Paul  :  "  1  do  not 
command  you,  as  Peter  and  l^iul :  iliey  were  Apostles,  I  am 
a  condemned  man  ;  they  were  Tree  ;  1  have  hitherto  been  a 
slave."*  Ignatius,  who  succeeded  Evodius  in  the  See  of  Anti- 
och,  notwithstanding  the  prior  foundation  of  that  See  by  the 
Apostle  Peter,  proclaims  the  presiding  character  of  the  Roman 
Church,  and  regards  it  as  peculiarly  beloved  and  enlightened 
by  God  :  and  yet  to  you  he  appears  entirely  silent  on  its  pre- 
eminence ! 

The  letter  of  Clement,  IJishop  of  Rome,  to  the  Corinthians, 
is  the  next  document  to  which  you  direct  our  attention.  He 
was  a  cotemporary  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  his  letter  is  supposed 
by  some  to  have  been  written  about  the  year  90  ;  by  others,  at 
an  earlier  period.  It  is  written  in  the  name  of  the  Church  of 
God,  dwelling  at  Rome,  to  the  Church  of  God  dwelling  at  Co- 
rinth.t  The  revolt  of  the  Corinthians  against  their  ecclesias- 
tical superiors  was  the  occasion  of  lliis  "  most  powerful  letter," 
as  Irenmus  designates  it,  which  was  intended  to  "  recall  them  to 
peace,  and  to  renew  their  faith.";  'I'he  inscription,  you  ob- 
serve, is  ♦'  an  humble  beginning  ;  lor  Clement,  instead  of  atlect- 
ing  to  rule  the  Corinthians  by  his  ollicial  power,  unites  with  his 
Church  in  a  fraternal  expostulation."  Hut,  sir,  il  was  the  cus- 
tom of  antiquity  to  consider  affairs  of  great  importance  in  an 
assembly  of  the  bishop,  with  the  leading  members  of  the 
clergy,  and  the  result  of  the  deliberation  was  given  in  tiie  name 
of  the  whole  Church  ;  for,  according  to  Cyprian,  "  the  Church 
is  the  people  united  with  the  priest,  and  the  (lock  following  its 
pastor;    wlicnce,    you  should  know  that  the  bishop  is  in  the 

t  '•  Ecclcsia  Dei  quoB  incolit  lloinain  :"  7r«^:<jciir«-  In  the  work  of 
Hisho|)  Hopkins  it  is  translaUd  :  "  worships  at  "  This  unimportant  niis- 
l:ikt'  would  not  bi*  noticed  but  for  llu'  scviTity  of  llie  bisljop  towards  otin  r 
translnlors.  Of  all  men,  he  ought  to  be  tlie  most  indulgent  in  this  regard 

t      Irr:r'>''  h''    in   ."Iv    hr>'r.  r.  ill. 
1  * 


bb  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

Church,  and  the  Church  is  in  the  bishop."*  Notwithstanding 
that  inscription,  you  yourself,  after  the  early  writers,  speak  of 
the  letter  as  of  Clement.  His  interference  in  the  local  concerns 
of  this  distant  Church  is  inexplicable,  if  his  superior  authority 
be  not  admitted.  John  the  Apostle  was  still  alive,  and  both 
from  his  character  and  proximity  to  Corinth,  was  the  most 
likely  to  display  his  zeal  on  such  an  occasion,  if  zeal  only,  and 
not  the  order  of  Church  government,  were  the  moving  princi- 
ple. But  Clement  makes  no  mention  of  his  supremacy. — It 
was  not  called  in  question,  and  therefore  it  was  unnecessary  to 
assert  it :  he  proved  it  by  his  interference,  and  exercised  it  most 
effectually  by  paternal  remonstrance,  mild  rebuke,  and  sublime 
instruction.  Why,  you  ask,  does  he  not  complain  of  the  dis- 
regard of  the  rights  of  the  Apostolic  See,  by  the  violent  depo- 
sition of  the  bishop  of  Corinth  without  its  concurrence  ?  He 
does  complain  of  the  deposition  as  a  violation  of  the  order  esta- 
blisshed  by  Christ  in  his  Church — the  divine  law  by  which  the 
laity  are  bound  to  obey  those  who  are  set  over  them.  This 
was  their  crime ;  this  was  the  evil  to  be  cured  by  salutary  ad- 
monition. The  rights  of  the  Holy  See  had  only  been  indirectly 
and  remotely  invaded,  inasmuch  as  that  See  is  the  guardian  of 
the  order  divinely  established.  Had  the  discipline  then  prevail- 
ed, whereby  the  deposition  of  bishops  is  reserved  to  the  Pope, 
still  reference  to  that  circumstance  would  have  been  unneces- 
sary, because  no  form  of  judgment  had  been  observed.  The 
expulsion  or  deposition  of  the  bishop  and  clergy  was  not  an  act 
of  an  inferior  tribunal  taking  cognizance  of  a  cause  reserved  to 
a  higher  power,  in  which  case  Clement  might  have  complained 
of  an  aggression  on  his  own  authority ;  but  it  was  an  act  of  po- 
pular violence,  in  which  the  divine  law  itself  had  been  trampled 
under  foot.  Though,  then,  the  letter  of  Clement  makes  no  men- 
lion  of  his  supremacy,  it  is  a  precious  and  splendid  evidence 
of  that  "solicitude  of  all  the  churches"  which  belonged  to  his 
Apostolic  office,  and  of  the  salutary  influence  of  that  authority 

*    S.  Cyprian,  Ep.  60,  ad  Pupianum,  p.  220.   Edit.  Wirceburg. 


ST  IREN.EUS.  G7 

which  Christ  wi-i'ly  eslablislicd,  to  preserve  the  faith,  and  re- 
store to  peace  the  discordant  members  ot^  the  Cluirrli.  The 
want  of  such  a  presiding  power  is  deeply  felt  in  modern  sects, 
who  have  no  remedy  for  tliose  evils  which  the  passions  of  men 
so  often  indict  on  religion,  and  sec  their  preachers  and  ministers 
either  obliged  to  court  favour,  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  independ- 
ence which  becomes  the  ambassador  of  Christ,  or  to  yield  to 
the  violence  or  intrigue,  which  the  enemies  of  order  and  authori- 
ty are  ever  ready  to  employ. 

Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  John  the  Evan- 
gelist, bears  splendid  evidence  of  the  powerful  principality  of 
the  Roman  Church, — of  the  high  authority  of  her  tradition, — 
and  of  the  succession  of  her  bishops,  from  her  glorious  found- 
ers, Pelor  and  Paul.  Every  elTort  to  explain  away  his  testi- 
mony must  always  prove  vain.  You  admit  tiiat  "  he  grants  to 
that  Church  an  important  rank."  'I'iiis  admission  is  important, 
since  we  shall  see  that  at  so  early  a  period,  when  her  bishops 
were  constant  objects  of  persecution,  she  could  have  derived 
that  rank  only  from  her  Apostolic  founders.  Writing  against 
the  Gnostics,  Irenoeus  says:  "  All  who  wish  to  sec  the  truth, 
may  see  in  all  the  Church  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles,  mani- 
fested throughout  the  whole  world  :  and  we  can  enumerate  the 
bishops  who  have  been  ordained  by  the  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors, down  to  our  own  time,  who  taught,  or  knew  no  such 
doctrine  as  they  madly  dream  of. — But  since  it  would  be  very 
tedious  to  enumerate  the  succession  of  all  the  Churches  in  thi:? 
work,  by  pointing  to  the  tradition  of  the  greatest,  and  most  an- 
cient Church,  known  to  all,  founded  and  established  at  Rome 
by  the  two  most  glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  her 
lailh  announced  to  men,  coming  down  to  us  by  the  succession 
of  bishops,  we  confoiind  all  those  who  in  any  injproper  manner 
gather  together,  either  through  self-complacency  or  vain-glory, 
or  through  blindness  and  perverse  disposition.  For  with  this 
Church,  on  account  of  the  more  powerful  principality,  it  is  nc- 
ceesary  that  every  Church,  that  is,  the  faithful,  w  ho  are  in  every 


68  ST  IREN^rS. 

direction,  should  agree,  in  which  the  Apostolic  tradition  has 
been  always  preserved,  by  those  who  are  in  every  direction."* 
Much  ingenuity  has  been  exercised  to  destroy  the  force  of 
so  solemn  a  testimony.  You  ask :  "  Does  he  not  make  the 
establishment  of  the  Church  of  Rome  the  joint  act  of  both  Peter 
and  Paul,  saying,  in  positive  terms,  that  they  set  Linus  over 
that  Church  as  its  bishop,  and  not  intimating,  in  the  slightest 
degree,  that  Peter  ever  established  himself  as  bishop  there?" 
We  grant  that  both  Apostles  concurred  in  its  establishment, 
and  the  Popes  are  accustomed  in  all  their  solemn  acts  to  unite 
both,  not  only  as  patrons  whom  they  invoke,  but  likewise  as 
Apostles  whose  authority  they  inherit.  These  holy  Apos- 
tles acted  in  concert,  without  jealousy,  labouring  for  the  glory 
of  their  common  Master,  though  the  prerogative  of  Peter  was 
special.  What  regards  Linus  is  tlius  expressed  by  Euse- 
bius,  in  the  original  words  of  Irenseus  :  "  The  blessed  Apos- 
tles, having  foimded  and  built  up  the  CImrch,  delivered  to 
Linus  the  ministry  of  the  episcopate."!  You  infer  hence  that 
Linus  was  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  even  in  the  lifetime  of  Peter 
and  Paul :  but  were  this  the  case,  how  could  the  succession  be 
counted  from  the  Apostles  ?  Thus  Irenaeus  tells  us  that  on  the 
death  of  Anaclelus,  Clement  succeeded,  "  in  the  third  place 
from  the  Apostles. "J  Linus  tlien  must  not  have  been  Bishop 
of  Rome,  until  after  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul,  though 
he  received  the  episcopal  character  in  their  lifetime,  and  was 
appointed  to  be  the  bishop  of  that  city  after  their  decease,  and 
probably  exercised  many  acts  of  his  order  before  it,  with  their 
assent,  and  under  tlieir  direction.  Tfiere  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  whilst  tlie  two  Apostles  continued  in  Rome,  a  bishop 
was  created  to  govern  it  with  independent  authority. 

*     S.  lrena)us,  lib.  iii  adv.  lia'r.  c.  iii. 

iHKh)f'^iiv  >.ivrf)  T«v  Tii^f  iTrtCKOTrH;  hinov^yiav  ivi^ii^i^xx'.  Euscb.  1.  v. 
hist.  c.  G.  The  Latin  version  as  given  in  Irenceus  is  :  "  Fundantes  igitur 
et  instruentes  beati  apostoli  ecclesiam  Lino  episcopatum  administranda? 
ecclesioe  tradidernnt." 

t      Tpiru  Ti/Ta)    t'ri    tuv    u-TiTi^ctV .    (lt>.) 


ST  IRENiEUS.  CO 

♦•With  respect  to  the  more  powerful  prinripnlily  of  wliich 
Irenaeus  speaks,  he  does  not,"  you  sny,  ♦♦  use  one  word  which 
connects  Uie  principality  wiih  the  Church,  or  wiih  ils  hishop  ; 
hut  refers  simply  to  its  location  in  that  city,  which  was  then, 
and  for  many  centuries  before  and  after,  the  acknowledged 
mistress  of  the  world."  For  my  part,  after  an  attentive  exa- 
mination of  the  passage,  I  am  perfectly  unable  to  find  the  least 
mention  whatever  of  the  city,  or  ils  imperial  greatness,  but 
solely  and  exclusively  of  the  Church  founded  by  the  Apostles. 
On  what  ground,  then,  do  you  assert,  that  the  more  powerful 
prinripnlily  ilc>ignaled  the  civil  dominion  ?  Suppose  it  for  a 
moment,  and  insert  the  explanatory  words.  '*  By  pointing  to 
the  tradition  of  the  greatest  and  most  ancient  Church,  known 
to  all,  founded  and  established  at  Kome,  by  the  two  most  glo- 
rious Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  her  faith  announced  to 
men,  coming  down  to  us  by  the  succession  of  bishops,  we 
confound  errorists  of  every  kind  :  for  with  this  Church  {be- 
cauae  the  city  in  icliich  it  is  situated  is  the  seat  of  tJie  Roman 
empire)  every  Church  must  agree."*  Would  you  admit  such 
a  reason  ?  Substitute  the  words  which  explain  the  more  power- 
ful principality  of  spiritual  authority,  and  you  will  find  the 
reasoning  forcible  and  coherent.  IJy  referring  to  the  tradition 
of  the  Roman  Church  founded  by  the  Apostles, — to  its  faith 
perpetuated  through  the  regular  succession  of  its  bishops,  we 
•;onfound  all  sectarists,  because  with  this  Church  {on  account 
of  the  supreme  authority  ivith  which  its  Bishop  is  divincfy 
invested)^  every  other  Church  must  agree." 


"  "  MaximoB  et  antiquissimo?,  ct  omnibus  cognito;,  a  gloriosissimis 
(Juobus  apostolis  Petro  et  Paulo  fundatin  et  constitula;  ecclesicR  earn 
<{uam  habct  ab  apostolis  traditionem,  ct  annuntiatam  hominibus  fidein 
per  successioncB  cpiscoporuin  pervenientcra  usque  ad  nos  indicantes, 
confundiiuus  omnes  eos  (jui  quocjuo  xnodo,  vel  per  sibi  j)laccntia,  vrl 
vanatn  gloriarn,  vol  per  ccecitatein  ct  inalam  sententiam,  pra'lcrquain 
oportnt  colligunt.  Ad  banc  enim  ecclesiam,  propter  potentiorem  prin- 
cii)alitateiu  necegsc  est  oinnem  convcnire  ecclesiain,  hoc  est,  cos  qui 
sunt  undique  fidclcd  :  in  qua  semper  ab  liis  <jui  sunt  undiquc,  conservala 
est  ca  qua;  <  st  ab  apostolis  traditio."   S.  Iren.  1    iii.  c.  iii. 


/U  ST  IREN.EUS. 

Though  you  are  "not  fond  of  resting  any  religious  question 
on  mere  verbal  criticism,"  you  cannot  forbear  observing  that 
Irenaeus  does  not  say :  on  account  of  "  its"  more  powerful 
principality,  whence  you  conceive  yourself  authorized  to  infer 
that  he  referred  to  the  principality  of  the  city,  not  of  the 
Church :  as  if  when  the  relative  is  omitted,  as  is  frequently 
done  by  writers  in  every  language,  what  is  said  must  be  re- 
ferred, not  to  what  immediately  precedes,  but  to  something  not 
before  spoken  of  in  any  way  !  Few  will  be  inclined  to  adopt  this 
canon  of  interpretation.  In  the  present  instance  the  preposition 
propter  determines  the  relation  :  for  with  this  Church  on  ac- 
count of  the  more  powerful  principality  every  Church  must 
agree  :  just  as  in  the  following  chapter  the  Son  of  God  is  stated 
to  have  submitted  to  be  born  of  a  virgin,  on  account  of  ihe  most 
extraordinary  love  towards  his  creatures.*  As  well  might  it  be 
said  that  the  love  spoken  of  v/as  not  his  love,  because  the  rela- 
tive is  wanting,  as  that,  in  the  other  instance,  the  powerful 
principality  is  not  the  principality  of  the  Church. 

You  think  that  the  scope  of  Irendeus,  which  was  to  refute 
the  Gnostics,  ^ho  boasted  of  wisdom  superior  to  the  Apostles, 
and  of  secret  traditions,  will  serve  to  illustrate  his  meaning. 
"He  had  been  employed,"  you  observe,  "  in  refuting  the  wild 
absurdities  of  the  Gnostic  heretics  from  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  now  he  desires  to  put  them  down  by  the  authority  of 
tradition."  Undoubtedly ;  but  he  points  to  the  tradition  of  the 
Roman  Church  especially,  because  the  greatest  of  all  Churches ; 
because  with  it  all  the  genuine  disciples  of  Christ  every  where 
had  always  harmonized  ;  and  consequently  its  tradition,  authori- 
tatively declared  by  its  Bishop,  was  the  solemn  attestation  of 
what  the  Apostles  had  originally  taught. 

But  you  object  that  the  Latin  term  "  convenio,"t  used  by 
the  translator  of  Irenaeus,  cannot  be  rendered  to  "  agree"  with- 
out a  want  of  grammatical  accuracy,  and  that  the  idea  conveyed 

"  Qui  propter  eminentissimam  erga  figmentum  suum  dilectionem.' 
S.  Irenaeus,  1.  iii.  4,  p.  242.  Edit.  Col.  Agrip.  an.  159G. 

t  "  Ad  banc  enim  ecclesiam  propter  potentiorem  principalitatem 
necesse  est  oninem  convenire  ecclesiam."     Irenseus,  supra. 


I 


ST  IREN.F.rS.  71 

by  it  would  have  no  connexion  wiili  ilic  argument.  I  refer 
ilie  reader  to  llie  dictionaries,  and  to  the  note''  for  tlie  meaning 
of  tlie  disputeil  term.  If  there  were  any  ambij,aiiiy  in  the 
phrase,  its  meaning  should  be  determined  by  lljc  context, 
wliicli  necessarily  expresses  agreement,  and  not  resort  to  the 
j)lace,  as  will  appear  by  the  paraphrase  according  to  this  latter 
exposition. — "  To  this  Church,  on  account  of  the  imperial  do- 
minion, it  is  necessary  that  the  whole  Church,  that  is,  the 
failliful  from  all  quarters,  should  come  up."  'I'he  greatness  of 
the  city  might  give  occasion  to  some  of  the  faithful  to  visit 
Iconic,  but  it  never  could  impose  such  a  necessity  on  all.  Nay, 
it  was  a  circumstance  in  most  cases  unfavourable  to  their  visit- 
ing it,  because  the  public  authority  was  there  more  vigilant, 
and  more  hostile  to  the  Christian  profession.  You  forget  the 
limes  in  which  Irenanis  wrote,  when  persecution  raged  at 
Rome  against  the  Churcli,  and  every  successor  of  Peter  was 
a  martyr.  Was  the  political  pre-eminence  of  tlie  city  likely 
in  such  circumstances  to  attract  the  clergy  and  the  faithful  of 
nil  the  surrounding  cliurches,  to  sec  its  lowly  and  persecuted 
IJishop  ?  I  am  astonished  at  the  fanciful  conjectures  which 
men  seriously  put  forward  to  evade  the  force  of  a  j)lain  and 
powerful  testimony. 

The  fact  whicji  you  allege  to  justify  your  interprc't:uion  of 
this  passage,  shall  now  be  considered.  During  the  lifetime 
of  Irena^us  considerable  excitement  was  occasioned  in  the 
churches  of  Asia,  by  an  eflbrt  to  bring  them  to  conformity 
with  the  oilier  cliurches  of  the  world,  in  the  observance  of 
the  Paschal  festival.     They  were  accustomed  to  celebrate  it 

*  Bishop  Hopkins  is  not  accurate  in  stating,  tliat  when  convenio 
refers  io  place,  it  is  usually  followed  by  the  accusative,  but  when  to  sen- 
timent, as  when  it  means  to  consent  or  agree,  it  generally  lakes  the  da- 
tive." The  nearest  phrases  I  can  find  in  Uie  classical  authors  like  that 
of  IrentDUs,  are  :  "  Convenit  optime  ad  pcdem  cothurnus,"  and  "  convc- 
nit  ad  eum  ha-c  contumelia,"  both  found  in  Cicero,  the  former  signify- 
ing "  the  boot  fits  the  foot  well,"  the  latter,  **  this  insult  alfects  him." 
It  is  j)rol)ablr  that  the  translator  adhered  closely  to  the  Greek  idiom. 
The  verb  furtt^/xcrTaf,  to  harnjoni/.e,  is  construed  somelimes  with  t^sc 
and  the  accusative. 


72  ST  IREN^US. 

on  the  same  day  as  the  Jews,  whether  that  was  Sunday  or  not, 
whilst  the  general  practice  was  to  celebrate  it  on  the  Sunday 
immediately   following    the   vernal  equinox.     Councils   were 
convened  in  various  places,  and  the  voice  of  all  was  unanimous, 
that  uniformity  should  be  insisted  on.     Irenaeus  presided  over 
a  synod  in  Gaul,  in  the  name  of  which  a  letter  was  directed 
to  the  Asiatic  churches.     A  letter  also  was  sent  from  the  Ro- 
man synod,  bearing  the  name  of  Victor  the  bishop.     Poly- 
crates,  at  the  head  of  several  Asiatic  bishops,  undertook  to 
justify  the    peculiar   usage    of    his    countrymen,    in    a   letter 
which  he   addressed  to  Victor  and  to  the  Church  of  the  Ro- 
mans.    On  the  receipt  of  the  letter,  Victor  resolved  to  separate 
from  the  communion  of  the  Universal  Church,  the  discordant 
churches  of  Asia  and  of  the  neighbouring  provinces,  whose 
obstinate  adherence  to  this  practice  might  eventually  endanger 
the  integrity  of  faith  by  a  too  close  imitation  of  Judaical  obser- 
vances.    With  this  view  he  despatched  letters  to  all  his  col- 
leagues, declaring,  or  threatening  to  declare — for  the  matter  is 
doubtful — the  recusant  bishops  aliens  from  ecclesiastical  com- 
munion.    To  many  of  the  bishops,  who  before  had  urged  the 
necessity  of  uniformity,  this  severity  seemed  uncalled  for  and 
untimely.     On  this  occasion  Irenaeus  wrote  to  the  Pontiff  a  re- 
spectful remonstrance.     He  called  to  his  recollection  the  mode- 
ration   observed,   on    the   same    subject,   by    his    predecessor 
Anicetus,  who  having  vainly  endeavoured  to  induce  Polycarp, 
wlien  he  visited  Rome,  to  abandon  the  peculiar  practice  of  the 
Asiatic  churches,  wisely  passed  over  this  difference  of  usage, 
and   treated   his   venerable   guest  with   distinguished   honour. 
These  are  the  facts  as  related  by  Eusebius  in  his  history.*     I 
am  pleased  that  you  have  referred  to  them  by  way  of  illustra- 
tion.    The  letter  of  Polycrates  to  Victor  in  justification  of  the 
Asiatic  practice,  shows   that  he  recognised  in  the  Bishop  of 
Rome   a  special   authority ;   for  it  does  not   appear    that   he 
deemed  it  necessary  to  justify  his  practice  to  the  other  bishops 
who  had  addressed  him.     The  measures  to  which  Victor  re- 

*     Euseb.  1.  V.  c.  xxiii.  xxiv 


PASCHAL  CONTROVERSY.  73 

sorted,  or  threatened  to  resort,  prove  that  he  felt  himself  in- 
vested with  power  even  over  his  colleagues  in  the  episcopacy 
in  the  most  distant  parts,  and  that  he  had  authority  to  punish, 
with  the  highest  ecclesiastical  censure,  obstinate  departure 
from  the  general  discipline  of  the  Church.  The  remon- 
strance of  Irena3us  does  not  give  tiie  least  indication  of  any 
usurpation  of  power  by  Victor,  but  is  grounded  solely  on  the 
inexpedicjicy  of  exercising  it  in  those  circumstances.  The  ex- 
ample of  Anicetus  affords  a  splendid  instance  of  the  indulgence 
and  forbearance  of  the  Holy  See,  in  points  of  a  discretionary 
character,  especially  where  personal  merit  recommends  the 
advocacy  of  ancient  usage.  The  unwillingness  of  Polycarp  to 
relinquish  a  practice  which  he  believed  to  have  originally  had 
the  sanction  of  tlie  Apostle  JSt  Jolin,  implies  no  resistance  to 
the  positive  injunctions  of  a  Superior,  wlio  had  wisely  confined 
himself  to  mere  persuasion. 

The  notion  of  supremacy  which  would  require  the  abandon- 
ment of  ancient  national  usages  at  the  mere  suggestion  of  the 
Pontiff,  without  the  least  expostulation,  or  representation  of 
the  inconveniences  that  might  thence  ensue,  is  a  far  more  ex- 
alted view  of  it,  than  is  entertained  by  the  most  devoted  de- 
fenders of  Papal  authority.  The  Pontiffs  themselves  have 
generally — I  might  say,  uniformly,  manifested  wise  and  en- 
larged views  in  regard  to  local  usages,  and  have  seldom 
threatened  to  enforce  points  of  mere  discipline  by  severe  cen- 
sures, unless  they  perceived  some  danger  to  faith  likely  to  re- 
sult from  the  want  of  uniformity. 

I  agree  with  you,  that  the  subject  of  this  controversy  was  of 
no  trifling  importance.  'J'he  practice  of  celebrating  the  resur- 
rection of  our  Lord,  on  one  day  of  the  week  rather  than  ano- 
tlier,  was  indeed  in  itself  indillcrent ;  and  the  Apostle  St  John 
had  wisely  sanctioned  its  celebration  in  Asia  on  the  very  day  on 
which  the  Jews  celebrated  their  passover,  in  order  to  facilitate 
the  transition  from  Judaism  to  (Jlirislianity,  in  places  where  the 
Jews  were  most  numerous.  In  other  portions  of  the  Church, 
where  this  motive  did  not  exist,  the  Sunday  was  chosen  for  its 
celebration,  as  the  very  day  consecrated  by  his  triumph  over 
o 


74  ST  IREN^US. 

death ;  and  all  coincidence  with  the  Jewish  observance  was 
avoided,  that  it  might  be  the  more  clearly  understood,  that  the 
Mosaic  rites  had  entirely  passed  av/ay.  As  Christianity  ad- 
vanced, the  motives  for  indulgence  towards  the  Jewish  con- 
verts became  fewer  and  less  strong,  and  that  toleration  which 
the  Apostles  had  extended  to  the  ceremonial  observances,  was 
no  longer  necessary  or  expedient.  Anicetus  desired  to  see  uni- 
formity prevail  throughout  the  whole  Christian  Church,  but  re- 
spected the  attachment  of  a  venerable  man  to  long  established 
usage.  At  a  later  period  Victor  perceived  that  the  practice  was 
subject  to  great  inconveniences,  and  not  entirely  free  from  the 
taint  of  error,*  as  some  considered  it  an  obligation  of  the  Mosaic 
law  :  wherefore  he  judged  that  it  was  time  to  cut  off  the  refrac- 
tory adherents  to  it  from  the  general  body  of  the  Church.  The 
entreaties  and  counsels  of  Irenaeus  induced  him  to  relent :  but 
the  event  showed  the  wisdom  and  prudence  which  influenced 
Victor,  as  the  Quartodedmans^  or  obstinate  observers  of  this 
usage,  were  finally  separated  from  the  Church  in  the  general 
Council  of  Nice. 

You  advise  us  to  try  the  experiment  of  acting  as  Polycarp 
did  towards  Anicetus.  The  counsel  is  needless.  Every  day 
bishops  from  various  parts  of  the  world,  where  usages  pre- 
vail different  in  many  respects  from  those  most  cherished  by 
the  Holy  See,  go  to  Rome,  and  are  received  by  the  Father 
of  the  faithful  as  brothers,  with  all  the  marks  of  ecclesiastical 
communion.  Their  remonstrances,  their  explanations,  their 
defence  of  national  practices,  are  heard  with  patience  ;  and  even 
when  the  Pontifl'  earnestly  desires  and  recommends  conformity 
to  the  general  law,  he  tolerates,  with  wise  indulgence,  the  dis- 
crepancies which  he  cannot  remove  without  a  painful  exercise 
of  authority. 

In  the  language  of  Irenfcus,  as  understood  by  you,  you  think 
that  you  have  found  the  solution  of  the  mystery  with  which  the 
question  of  Roman  supremacy  is  connected.  You  "  do  not 
wonder,  that  the  very  fact  of  this  supremacy  existing  so  long, 

*     ere^ocTt^iicrAo-.     Eusebius,  loc.  cit. 


PKRIMTIITV   OF  THE    ROMAN"  SEE.  76 

wilhoul  any  apparent  support  from  the  temporal  power,  should 
strike  our  imajrinations  as  being  almost  conclusive  evidence  in 
its  favour."  My  judgment,  at  least,  rests  satisfied  with  the 
proof.  I  see  thrones  totter,  and  empires  fall,  where  human 
wisdom  and  power  promised  perpetuity  :  but  the  "  better  prin- 
cipality" of  the  successor  of  tlie  fisherman  survives,  though 
assailed  by  all  the  power  and  malice  of  this  world's  potentates. 
From  Nero  to  Napoleon,  what  efforts  have  not  been  made  for 
the  annihilation  of  this  undying  sovereignty  !  The  Pontifls  of 
the  three  first  centuries  were,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  vic- 
tims of  pagan  cruelty  ;  but,  at  the  end  of  this  fierce  conflict, 
Constanline,  as  if  struck  with  the  superior  majesty  of  the  Vicar 
of  Jesus  Christ,  leaves  the  imperial  city  to  be  the  peaceful  re- 
sidence of  the  humble  Silvester.  How  often,  since  that  time, 
liave  not  the  barbarian  and  the  Christian  entered  in  wrath  into 
that  city, — imprisoned  or  led  captive  its  Bishop,  and  left  him  to 
pine  away,  or  die  in  foreign  dungeons  !  And  w  hen  we  see  the 
meek  Pius  come  forth  from  his  mil  to  be  borne  in  Iriumpii 
back  to  his  capital,  and  now  behold  the  humble  Gregory,  the 
successor  of  his  oflice  and  his  virtues,  still  governing  with  pa- 
ternal authority  the  Universal  Church,  are  we  not  justified  in 
concluding  that  this  ♦'powerful  principality"  is  dillerent  from 
all  governments  of  human  origin  ?  "  Count  over,"  we  say  to 
you,  with  Augustin,  *♦  the  bishoj)s,  from  the  very  See  of  Peter 
the  Apostle,  and  sec  in  that  list  of  Fathers  the  succession  of  one 
to  the  other.  'J'his  is  the  rock  against  which  the  haughty  gates 
of  hell  cannot  prevail."* 

To  account  for  tiie  human  origin  of  this  power,  you  describe 
the  greatness  of  Rome  '*  at  the  time  when  the  Apostles,  Peter 
and  Paul,  established  the  Church  there  ;"  and  you  suppose,  that 
in  wealth,  in  numbers,  ami  importance,  it  must  soon  have  sur- 
passed all  others.  As  great  cities  influence  the  whole  nation, 
you  infer  that  the  Roman  Church  must  have  acquired  a  ♦*  pri- 
macy of  influence  and  consequence"  over  the  other  Churches. 
To  illustrate  this,   you   represent  what  would    be  the  probable 

"     Aug.  I's.  contra  parlriu  Donati. 


76  ST  IREN.EUS. 

consequence  if,  at  the  present  day,  missionaries  to  China  should 
succeed  in  establishing  Churches  in  several  of  tlie  provinces, 
and  subsequently  in  the  capital,  which  would  naturally  absorb 
all  solicitude,  and  practically  become  the  centre  and  directing 
rule  of  missionary  exertion.  You  would  write  to  these  mis- 
sionaries :  "  Be  careful  about  union,  and  in  all  your  proceed- 
ings consult  together :  but,  especially,  do  nothing  without  con- 
sulting with  your  brethren  of  the  capital  ciiy.  In  order  that 
the  good  cause  should  prosper,  it  is  necessary  that  you  should 
resort  to  the  Church  established  there  as  often  as  you  can  ;  by 
reason  of  its  most  powerful  principality,  being  the  seat  of  go- 
vernment, and  the  very  heart  of  the  empire,  the  Church  located 
there  is  the  most  important  of  the  whole,  and  the  brethren  placed 
over  it  should  have  the  chief  direction  in  all  your  councils." 
Compare  your  language  with  that  of  Irenaeus,  and  see 
whether  it  agree.*  Your  implied  admission,  that  from  the 
very  commencement  the  Roman  Church  had  a  primacy  of 
influence,  and  the  chief  direction  in  the  Councils  of  all  the 
churches,  is  not  without  importance.  To  attribute  it,  how- 
ever, to  the  great  influence  of  the  Roman  Bishop  with  the 
pagan  emperors,  praetors,  and  other  officers  who  professed 
and  exercised  constant  hostility  to  Christianity,  is  an  hypothe- 
sis at  variance  with  the  roost  certain  facts  of  history.  The  ex- 
ample of  that  vast  empire,  controlled  and  kept  in  union  by  a 
single  will,  suggested,  you  suppose,  the  expediency  of  giving  to 
the  Roman  Bishop  a  controlling  power  over  all  Christendom. 
The  primitive  Christians  reasoned  thus,  in  your  opinion : 
*'  Why  not  secure  to  the  whole  Church  that  order,  and  subor- 
dination, and  peace,  under  a  single  earthly  head,  as  the  Lord's 
vicegerent,  which  heathenism  had  brought,  in  the  afl'airs  of  hu- 
man government,  to  such  a  marvellous  system  ?  Should  the 
hosts  of  Satan  be  better  marshalled  than  the  hosts  of  God? 
Should  one  single  will  be  felt  and  obeyed,  to  the  remotest 
bounds  of  that  mighty  empire,  and  should  not  one  single 
Church,  which  is  the  spouse  of  Christ,  be  much  rather  the 

*    Supra,  p.  67. 


FANCIFUL  HYPOTHESIS.  77 

ruler  and  mistress  ilirou»rh  llie  whole  of  Christendom  ?  On  such 
a  plan,  iiow  mucii  more  union  might  he  expected,  liow  nuicli 
more  peace,  how  much  less  opportunity  for  heresy  and  false 
doctrine,  and  how  much  more  glorious  would  he  the  victory  of 
the  Lord's  people,  when  they  should  appear  to  the  heathen  one 
mighty  host,  *  briglit  as  the  sun,  fair  as  the  moon,  and  terrible 
as  an  army  with  banners.'  That  the  best  men  of  tlie  primi- 
tive age,  being  accustomed  to  have  this  astonishing  empire  of 
the  world  continually  before  their  eyes,  might  readily  be  led  to 
contemplate  the  desirableness  and  practicability  of  a  similar  sys- 
tem in  the  Church,  and  that  under  this  influence  of  their  ha- 
bitual views  they  would  find  in  Scriptures  analogies,  and  even 
precepts,  that  they  would  lay  hold  on  our  Lord's  addresses  to 
Peter,  and  begin  to  interpret  them  in  favour  of  their  ecclesias- 
tical empire  ;" — these,  sir,  are  suppositions  groundless  in  them- 
selves, injurious  to  the  early  professors  and  teachers  of  our 
faith,  and  far  from  aiding  the  cause  they  had  been  brought  for- 
ward to  sustain.  For  thus  you  virtually  admit,  that,  even  in 
the  primitive  ages,  the  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Bishop  existed  : 
that  it  implied  authority  and  control,  for  otherwise  it  would  not 
have  anywise  resembled  the  power  of  Caesar;  and  that  it  was 
sustained  by  reference  to  Scriptural  texts,  though  in  your  opin- 
ion it  originated  in  the  political  pre-eminence  of  Rome,  and  in 
the  admiration  of  the  organization  of  its  vast  empire.  You  dis- 
cover this  in  "the  more  powerful  principality,"  mentioned  by 
Irenacus,  whilst  we,  witii  that  primitive  age,  conceive  that  prin- 
cipality to  be  the  institution  of  the  wisdom  of  Him  who  wished 
that  his  Church  should  be  a  united  kingdom — a  compact  body; 
and  wc  discover  in  its  perpetuity  the  exercise  of  that  power, 
against  which  the  powers  of  darkness  cannot  prevail.  How 
you  can  still  pretend  to  place  the  Church  of  Rome  at  this  day 
in  contrast  with  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  primitive  age,  is  to 
me  strange ;  for  though  you  may  conceive  human  causes  to  have 
given  occasion  to  the  assertion  of  the  Primacy,  you  own  that  it 
was  then,  as  it  is  now,  supposed  to  rest  on  the  addresses  of 
our  Lord  to  Peter.  Thus  you  admit  conformity  wiierc  you 
had  pledged  yourself  to  prove  a  contrast;  and  you  substitute  a 


78  ST  IRENiEUS. 

liuman  origin,  of  your  own  imagining,  to  the  divine  foundation 
of  the  Primacy,  which,  in  common  with  the  Church  of  the  pre- 
sent day,  the  primitive  Church  believed.  How  vain  are  all 
the  attempts  of  man  to  take  away  from  the  organization  of  the 
Church  its  divine  character  !  While  Rome  was  the  residence 
of  the  Caesars,  God  permitted  the  Church  and  her  Chief  Pastor  to 
be  constantly  assailed  by  the  Roman  power ;  and  he  caused  the 
first  Christian  emperor,  shortly  after  he  had  come  to  the  know- 
ledge of  faith,  to  remove  the  seat  of  empire  to  Byzantium,  so  that, 
in  after  ages,  the  privileges  of  the  Roman  Bishop  might  not  be 
thought  to  have  been  the  gifts  of  the  civil  power,  or  the  acci- 
dental appendages  of  his  office,  derived  from  the  city  in  which 
he  presided.  The  secular  origin  of  the  Primacy  is  manifestly 
disproved,  by  the  hostility  to  the  Christian  faith  which  the  civil 
power  exercised  whilst  Rome  was  the  capital:  and  by  the  utter 
improbability  that  the  memory  of  its  ancient  grandeur  could  have 
been  the  foundation  of  its  privileges,  after  a  rival  city  had  arisen, 
around  which  was  gathered  all  that  imperial  munificence  and 
power  could  collect  or  bestow.  Rome,  in  the  zenith  of  her 
glory,  was  the  unrelenting  enemy  of  the  cross,  and  would  lend  no 
jewel  to  adorn  the  mitre  of  her  Bishop ;  in  her  fallen  state,  she 
could  add  no  lustre  to  his  crown. 


Note. — "An  Essay  on  the  Invalidity  of  Presbyterian  Ordination," 
by  John  Esten  Cooke,  M.D.,  published  at  Lexington,  Kentucky,  in  J  829, 
has  come  into  my  hands  since  this  letter  went  to  press.  He  quotes  the 
testimony  of  Irenaeus,  and  gives  a  translation  entirely  conformable  to 
mine  on  those  points  in  which  I  have  had  occasion  to  dissent  from  Bishop 
Hopkins  :  "  With  this  Church,  on  account  of  its  greater  pre-eminence, 
it  is  necessary  that  every  church  should  agree." 


LETTER  VI. 

TERTULLIAN. 


Right  Re\t.rknd  Sir  : 

Leaving  lliose  truly  primilive  witnesses  of  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,  wlio  either  received  it  immediately  from 
the  Apostles,  or  were  those  faithful  men  to  whom  the  precious 
deposit  of  Apostolic  tradition  was  committed  hy  the  immediate 
disciples  of  the  Apostles,  we  come  to  Tertullian,  a  priest  of  Car- 
thage, who  lived  at  the  close  of  the  second  and  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century  of  our  era.  He  is  adduced  by  you  as  a 
witness,  "  adverse  to  the  Primacy,"  although,  in  the  very  first 
extract  from  his  writings,  which  you  bring  forward  to  support 
your  position,  you  have  the  proof  of  that  Primacy  you  are  so 
willing  to  impugn.  Contemporary  witli  this  writer  lived  cer- 
tain sectaries,  who  asserted  that  the  Apostles  did  not  know  all 
things.  This  ardent  defender  of  the  ancient  faith  indignantly 
asks:  "Was  anything  hidden  from  Peter,  who  was  called 
the  rock  on  which  thcCluirch  was  to  be  built,  and  who  obtain- 
ed the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  power  of  loos- 
ing and  binding  in  heaven  and  on  earth  ?'  You  deny  that  this 
passage  contains  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  superiority  of  one 
Apostle  over  the  other;  although  you  acknowledge  that  "this 
Father  seems  to  authorize  our  interpretation  of  the  passages  of 
Scripture.  To  deprive  us  of  his  authority  iti  this  point,  you 
wish  him  to  be  heard  in  explanation,  and  with  this  view  you 
quote  a  long  passage  from  his  work  "  On  Chastity,"  written, 

•  Tert.  (Jo  Prn-s.  §  xxii.  "  Latuit  aliqiiid  Pctrum,  n«(lificandu3  Ecclc- 
sicB  petrain  dictum,  clavcs  regni  cn-loruin  consccutuin,  et  solvcndi  cl  al- 
ligandi  in  coclis  ct  in  tcrris  potestatcm  ?     P.  238,  Ed.  Lut 


80  TERTULLIAN. 

as  you  acknowledge,  after  he  had  become  a  follower  of  Monta- 
nus.  For  this  eloquent  apologist  of  Christianity,  and  defender 
of  the  Church,  was  so  far  influenced  by  the  severity  of  his  dis- 
position as  to  exclude  from  pardon  those  who  were  guilty  of 
adultery  and  other  grievous  crimes,  however  penitent  they 
might  appear.  To  oppose  this  rising  error,  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
published  a  decree,  by  which  such  sinners  were  declared  ad- 
missible to  penance  and  forgiveness.  On  this  occasion  Tertul- 
lian  wrote  his  work  **  On  Chastity,"  in  which  he  says: — "I 
hear  that  an  edict  has  been  published,  and,  indeed,  a  peremp- 
tory one :  namely,  the  '  Bishop  of  bishops,'  which  is  equivalent 
to  the  '  Sovereign  Pontiff,'*  proclaims:  I  pardon  the  sins  of  adul- 
tery and  fornication,  to  such  as  do  penance.t"  Endeavouring 
to  prove  that  the  power  of  the  keys  was  given  to  Peter  alone, 
and  was  not  communicated  to  his  successors,  he  says: — "now  I 
ask  your  own  sentiment,  whence  do  you  claim  this  power  for 
the  Church?  If  because  the  Lord  said  to  Peter,  '  on  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  Church:  to  thee  I  have  given  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  or  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  or  loose  upon 
earth,  shall  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven,'  thou  presumest,  on 
that  account,  that  the  power  of  loosing  and  binding  has  come 
down  to  thee  ;  that  is,  to  the  whole  Church  allied  to  Peter — 
who  art  thou  that  overturnest  and  changest  the  manifest  inten- 
tion of  the  Lord,  who  conferred  this  on  Peter  personally  :  On 
THEE,  he  says,  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  to  thee  I  will  give 
the  keys,  not  to  the  Church,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  or 
loose,  not  what  they  shall  bind  or  loose. "J  Here  Tertullian  is 
manifestly  with  us,  as  far  as  regards  the  rock,  which  he  iden- 
tifies with  Peter,  and  the  power  of  the  keys,  which  he  main- 

*  "  Pontifex,  scilicet,  raaximus,  quod  est  Episcopus  episcoporum." 
This  is  an  inversion  not  unusual  in  Tertullian.  The  title  which  the  Pop.e 
assumed  was  "  Bishop  of  bishops  j"  but  Tertullian  says  that  it  is  equivalent 
to  "  Sovereign  Pontiff,"  a  title  as  yet  exclusively  applied  to  the  pagan 
high  priest.  Bishop  Hopkins  translates  it :  "the  pontiff,  namely,  the 
chief,  which  means  the  Bishop  of  bishops  !" 

t    Tertullian,  1.  de  pudicitia,  p.  715.  Edit.  Lutetiae,  1G41. 

X    Ibid.  p.  703.. 


TERTULLIAN.  81 

tains  to  have  been  the  exclusive  privilege  of  Peter.  He  denies, 
indeed,  that  this  power  descended  to  the  successors  of  Peter, 
but  does  not  question  the  succession  itself,  wliich  he  admits,  by 
calling  the  Bishop  of  Rome  *'  Apostolic."*  His  denial  of  the 
inheritance  of  Peter's  power  of  forgiveness  by  Peter's  suc- 
cessor, arose  from  his  attachment  to  an  error,  condemned  by 
one  of  them,  and,  consequently,  loses  all  weight,  since  it 
must  be  regarded  as  the  rejection  of  a  power  by  which  the 
error,  which  TertuUian  defended,  was  proscribed.  In  the  de- 
fence of  a  false  principle,  it  cannot  surprise  us  that  he  advanced 
erroneous  interpretations  of  Scripture  ;  and  hence  his  authority, 
in  other  respects  imposing,  has  no  weighty  wlien  he  becomes 
an  avowed  partisan  of  ascertained  error.  The  partial  exposi- 
tions of  Holy  Writ,  put  forward  by  a  writer  in  such  circum- 
stances, will  often  be  found  in  contradiction  with  those  of  the 
same  writer  at  other  times.  Thus  TertuUian,  in  his  work 
called  '♦Scorpiace,"  extends  to  the  Church,  ihroutrh  Peter,  and 
even  to  every  member  of  it  who  may  confess  Christ,  as  he  did, 
what  he  here  explains  of  Peter,  personally  and  exclusively. 
♦*  For  if,"  says  he,  "  you  still  think  that  heaven  is  shut,  re- 
member that  the  Lord  here  left  its  keys  to  Peter,  and  through 
him  to  the  Church. "t 

The  following  attempt  of  TertuUian  to  explain  the  power  of 
the  keys  of  the  personal  acts  of  Peter,  shows  much  ingenuity, 
vainly  employed,  to  evade  the  force  of  the  Scriptural  proof 
brought  against  his  error.  He  maintains,  that  the  event  cor- 
responds with  his  explanation  of  the  promise  :  ♦'  For  so  even 
the  event  teaches.  On  him  the  Church  was  built:  that  is, 
through  him  :  he  first  used  the  key  :  see  what  key  :  '  Ye  men 
of  Israel,  hear  what  I  say  :  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  destined  for  you 
by  God.'  He  finally  opened  the  avenue  of  the  celestial  king- 
dom, through  Christian  baptism,  by  which  the  sins  before  bound 


"     TertuUian,  1.  de  pudicitia,  p.  7(>3. 

\  "  Nam  ct  si  adhuc  clausum  putos  coclam,  memento  claves  ejus  hie 
Dorainum  Petro,  ct  por  cum  Ecclcsia3  rcliquisse."  Scorpiacc,  p.  G28. 
Ed.  LutctiiD,  an.  1641. 


83  TERTULLIAN. 

fast  are  loosed,  and  what  was  not  loosed,  according  to  true  sal- 
vation, are  bound  fast;  and  he  bound  Ananias  with  the  chain  of 
death,  and  loosed  the  lame  man  from  his  infirmity."*  I  need 
not  labour  much  to  convince  you,  or  the  reader,  that  the  cure 
of  the  lame  man  was  no  exercise  whatever  of  the  power  of  loos- 
ing or  binding.  The  key  which  Peter  is  said  to  have  given  the 
Jews,  by  pointing  out  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  will  scarcely  be 
thought  to  be  one  of  those  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  which 
Christ  promised  him.  Every  one  sees  that  this  is  an  allego- 
rical and  forced  explanation.  The  opening  of  the  avenue  to 
heaven  by  baptism  cannot  be  considered  as  the  exclusive  pre- 
rogative of  Peter,  and  the  mere  precedency  in  its  administration 
does  not  adequately  fulfil  the  strong  and  splendid  promises  of 
Christ.  Peter  is  not  merely  a  foundation,  but  a  rock,  a  strong 
and  permanent  foundation :  the  keys  given  him  are  those  of  a 
kingdom,  the  emblems  of  sovereignty  :  he  binds  and  looses,  in 
a  manner  peculiar  and  extraordinary. 

Tertullian  is  more  correct  in  considering  the  judgment  of 
Peter  in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  as  an  exercise  of  that  autho- 
rity to  bind  and  loose,  which  our  I^ord  had  given  him  :  "Also," 
says  he,  "  in  the  controversy,  whether  the  law  should  be  observ- 
ed or  not,  Peter,  first  of  all,  impelled  by  the  Spirit,  and  having 
spoken  of  the  call  of  the  nations,!  said :  '  Now  why  do  you 
tempt  the  Lord  by  imposing  a  yoke  on  the  brethren,  which 
neitlier  we  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to  bear  ?  But  by  the  grace 
of  Jesus,  we  believe  that  we  shall  be  saved,  even  as  they. 
This  sentence:]:  both  loosed  the  things  of  the  law,  that  were 
laid  aside,  and  bound  those  that  were  retained.'  "§  This  acute 
African  was  too  devoted  to  his  favourite  error  to  admit  that  the 


*     L.  de  pudicitia,  p.  743. 

t  "  De  nationum  vocatione  praefatus."  Bishop  H.  renders  it :  "  fore- 
told the  calling  of  the  nations." 

t  "  Hffic  sententia."  Bishop  H.  translates  it "  opinion ;"  but  an  opin- 
ion neither  looses  nor  binds  :  it  plainly  means  here,  judgment,  decree, 
sentence. 

§     Tertul.  de  pudic.  p.  743. 


fader's  acknowledgment.  83 

power  to  bind  ami  loose  extended  to  the  remission  of  the  most 
grievous  sins.  His  testimony,  tiien,  even  after  he  hail  passed 
to  the  sect  of  Montanus,  shows  that  the  passages  of  Scripture 
were  by  him,  as  well  as  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  Catholics 
in  general,  understood  of  Peter;  and  tliough  he  and  the  secta- 
rists  wished  to  restrict  their  meaning  to  Teter  personally,  the 
Bishop  of  Home  claimed,  in  virtue  of  them,  to  be  •'  Bishop  of 
bishops,"  and  to  inherit  the  powers  of  Peter,  and  the  Ca- 
tholic worUl  admitted  tliose  claims.  A  modern  apologist  of  the 
Anglican  churcii  has  had  the  ingenuousness  to  acknowledge, 
that  "  in  the  time  of  'I'ertullian,  whose  life  extended  into  the 
tliird  century,  a  considerable  advance  had  plainly  been  made  by 
the  Sec  of  Rome,  in  the  claim  of  the  I'rimacy,  inasmuch  as  he 
calls  the  Bishop  of  that  Church  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  and  dis- 
tinguishes him  with  the  authoritative  title  of  ♦  Bishop  of 
bishops.' — *  He  supposes  the  rock  to  mean  Peter:  but  he 
carefully  restricts  the  character  to  Peter  as  an  individual ;  he 
deems  the  privilege  to  be  altogether  personal;  and  he  flatly 
denies,  that  it  can  be  construed  as  belonging  to  what  then  began 
to  be  esteemed  Peter's  Church."''  You  are  displeased  at  this 
admission  ;  you  '*  leave  it  to  our  candour  to  say,  whether  Ter- 
tullian  does  not  apply  tliese  titles  rather  in  irony  than  in  sober 
allowance;"  and  you  contend  that  "he  had  no  idea  of  doing 
honour  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  the  contrary."  I  freely  con- 
cede that  he  used  the  titles  in  a  spirit  of  bitterness  and  sarcasm, 
because  the  edict  of  the  Pontiff  was  directed  against  his  favourite 
error;  but  had  the  Bishop  of  Rome  claimed  no  superiority  over 
other  bisliops,  tliere  would  have  been  no  ground  whatever  for 
applying  to  him  these  titles.  He  was  acknowledged  by  Ca- 
tholics to  be  "  the  Bishop  of  bishops,"  and  Tertullian  durst 
not  question  his  superiority,  thouL^i  in  anger  he  remarks,  that 
such  a  title  is  equivalent  to  ihe  name  hitherto  applied  only  to 
the  heathen  priest.  You  say,  "  every  metropolitan  bishop  who 
liad  bishj)ps  under  him,  might  be  called  a  chief  pontiff,  and  a 
bishop  of  !)i.shops  ;"  but  the  usage  of  the  Church  has  not  given 

•     Fabcr  8  Difficulties  of  Romanism,    Note,  p.  liOl.  riiil.  I'M. 


84  TERTULLIAN. 

to  metropolitans  this  latter  appellation,  and  the  former  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  given  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  except  sar- 
castically by  Tertullian  :  "  None  of  us,"  says  Cyprian,  "  makes 
himself  bishop  of  bishops,"* 

We  can  easily  withstand  the  force  of  Tertullian's  authority 
as  to  the  restriction  of  the  powers  to  Peter,  when  it  is  granted 
that  he,  though  at  that  time  a  declared  adversary  of  Peter's 
successor,  admitted  Peter  to  be  the  rock,  and  that  it  was  also 
admitted  and  believed  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  Peter's 
Church.t  Catholics  and  Montanists  agreed  on  these  two 
points,  and  the  transmission  of  the  power  of  forgiveness  was 
only  called  in  question  because  it  was  exercised  with  greater 
lenity  than  suited  the  severe  disposition  of  Tertullian.  How 
you  can  cite  him  as  a  witness  that  the  spiritual  supremacy  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  was  not  the  doctrine  of  his  age,  even  in 
the  Church  of  Rome  itself,  is  to  me  surprising,  since  he  testifies 
that  the  Bishop  of  that  Church  was  Bishop  of  bishops — that  he 
issued  an  absolute  peremptory  decree,:}: — that  as  successor  of 
Peter  he  claimed  the  powers  granted  to  this  Apostle, — and  that 
the  Roman  Church  was  the  Church  of  Peter  !  This  then  was 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  the  Catholic 
Church  generally,  whilst  the  error  which  denied  the  transmis- 
sion of  the  power  was  rejected,  with  Montanism  whence  it 
sprung,  by  the  judgment  of  the  Catholic  world. 

The  fact  of  the  succession  of  the  Roman  Bishop  to  Peter, 
was  not  denied  by  Tertullian,  even  after  he  had  suffered  his 
mind  to  be  bewildered  by  the  vagaries  of  Montanus.  He  still 
called  liim  "Apostolic,"  and  regretted  that  his  authority  had 
been  employed  against  the  sect,  under  the  influence,  as  he 
alleged,  of  Praxeas,  wliereby  the  peace  of  the  churches  of  Asia 
and  Phrygia  was  prevented,  which  would  have  been  restored 


*     Cone.  Carthag.  de  rebapt.  p.  339.    Operum  Cyp.  Ed.  Bas.  1521. 

t     "  Ad  omnem  Ecclesiam  Petri  propinquam."     Tertul.  ib. 

t  ''  Audio  etiam  edictum  esse  proposituin,  et  quidem  peremptorium, 
Pontifex  scilicet  maxinms,  quod  est,  episcopus  episcoporum  edicit." 
P.  7]5. 


PETER  THE  ROCK.  85 

by  the  approbation  of  tlie  prophecies  of  Montanus,  Prisca,  and 
Maximilla.*  In  earlier  and  belter  days  Tertullian  was  the 
loud  asscrtor  of  that  succession,  and  boldly  challenged  secta- 
rists  to  exhibit  any  thing  bearing  a  like  weight  of  authority : 
"Let  them  then  give  us  the  origin  of  their  churches  :  let  them 
unfold  the  series  of  their  bishops,  coming  down  from  the  be- 
ginning in  succession,  so  that  the  first  bishop  was  appointed 
and  preceded  by  any  of  the  Apostles,  or  of  Apostolic  men, 
provided  he  persevered  in  communion  with  the  Apostles.  For 
in  this  way  the  Apostolic  Churches  exhibit  their  origin,  as  the 
Church  of  Smyrna  relates  that  Polycarp  was  placed  there  by 
John;  as  the  Church  of  Rome  likewise  relates  that  Clement 
was  ordained  by  Peter;  and  in  like  manner  the  other  churches 
show  those  who  were  constituted  bishoj)s  by  the  Apostles,  and 
made  conservators  of  the  Apostolic  seed.  Let  heretics  feign 
any  thing  like  this  !"t 

According  to  your  own  avowal,  Tertullian  '•  admits  the  ap- 
plication of  the  term  '  rock'  to  Peter;"  but  you  err  in  stating 
that  in  this  he  difieis  from  the  other  Fathers,  for  I  shall  have 
occasion  to  prove  to  you  that  it  is  the  general  explanation 
given  by  these  venerable  men.  His  observation  that  by  the 
knife  of  stone  employed  in  circumcision  we  may  understand 
the  precepts  of  Christ  by  which  our  hearts  are  circumcised, 
♦*  because  Christ  is  proclaimed  the  rock  in  many  ways  and 
under  many  figures, "t  is  evidently  an  allegorical  exposition, 
having  no  force  whatever  as  an  illustration  of  the  text,  and  not 
at  all  weakening  his  literal  interpretation  of  the  rock  spoken 
of  by  Christ,  as  the  foundation  on  which  he  would  build  his 
Church.  The  very  passage  which  you  quote  from  his  work 
against  Marcion,  is  immediately  followed  by  tlie  declaration 

•     Tcrtul.  adv.  Praxoam  sub  initiuiii. 

f  Tert.  de  prascr.  hanT.  "  Edant  ergo  origiiu'in  cccli'siarum  suarum  ; 
evolvant  ordinem  episcoporum  suoruin,  ita  per  succcssiones  ab  initio 
decurrentem,  ut  primus  ille  cpiscopuH  aliquem  ex  apostolis — habiurit 
auctorem  et  anlecessorein. — Sicut  Romanorum  (rcdcsia)  Clementein 
a  Pctro  ordinatum — C'onfingant  talo  aliijuid  hiL-rctici. 

t     Tertullian  adv.  Judrcos,  p.  iild. 
U 


86  TERTULLIAN. 

that  Christ  called  Peter  a  rock,  choosing  to  communicate  to 
him  his  own  appellation  rather  than  to  use  any  term  not  applied 
to  himself.  I  regret  that  yon  have  withheld  from  your  readers 
the  following  sentence,  with  which  the  passage  concludes,  and 
which  illustrates  so  clearly  the  meaning  of  the  author  :  *'  There- 
fore he  preferred  to  give  a  name  to  the  dearest  of  his  disciples 
from  among  the  figures  which  regarded  himself,  than  from 
those  which  were  not  applied  to  himself."*  Having  asked 
the  question  why  Simon  was  designated  Peter,  he  says  :  *'  If 
to  express  the  vigour  of  his  faith,  many  substances  of  a  solid 
nature  would  present  a  suitable  figure  derived  from  their  own 
special  quality."  He  rejects  this  reason  as  unsatisfactory,  and 
asks  :  "  was  it  because  Christ  himself  was  styled  both  a  rock 
and  a  stone  ?  since  we  read  that  he  was  placed  as  a  stone  of 
offence  an^  a  rock  of  scandal ;  to  pass  over  other  passages  in 
which  the  same  terms  are  applied  to  him."  In  this  Tertullian 
acquiesces,  and  says,  that  Peter  was  styled  a  rock,  because 
Christ  was  styled  a  rock,  the  Lord  vouchsafing  to  communicate 
peculiarly  to  this  most  favoured  disciple  the  name  which  in  a 
figurative  sense  was  applied  to  himself,  as  having  a  more  in- 
timate reference  to  himself,  and  being  better  calculated  to  ex- 
press the  gifts  of  Peter,  than  other  figurative  expressions  bor- 
rowed from  objects  not  referred  to  Christ,!     He  does  not,  then, 

*  "  Ita  |ue  adfectavit  carissimo  discipulorutn  de  figuris  suis  pecu- 
liariter  nomen  communicare,  puto  propius  quam  de  non  suis."  Tertul. 
adv.  Marcion,  1.  iv.  p.  520. 

t  Ibidem.  "  Sed  et  cur  Petrum  ?  Si  ob  vigorera  fidei,  multse  materiie 
solidffique  nomen  de  suo  accommodarent.  An  quia  et  petra,  et  lapis 
Christus  ?  Siquidem  et  legimus  positum  eum  in  lapidem  oflfendiculi  et 
in  petram  scandali.  Omitto  caetera.  Itaque  adfectavit  carissimo  disci- 
pulorum,"  etc.  Some  curious  mistakes  are  observable  in  the  translation 
of  Bishop  Hopkins  :  "  But  why  Peter  ?  If  on  account  of  the  vigour  of  his 
faith,  there  are  many  and  solid  arguments  which  would  accommodate 
this  name  to  him  ?"  He  ends  his  version  by  the  words :  ^'  I  omit  other 
matters,"  but  the  author  means  :  "  I  omit  other  passages  of  Scripture." 
The"  solidae  materia)"  are  not  solid  arguments,  but  substances  such  as  a 
pillar,  or  any  other  object  which  might  have  afforded  a  figurative  ex- 
pression. 


FIGURATIVE  LANfa'AGE.  87 

as  you  conceive,  *'  leave  ilie  question  williout  seemiiicr  at  all 
conscious  that  Peter  could  be  calletl  a  stone  by  reason  of  the 
whole  Church  beinjr  built  upon  him,"  for  he  expressly  declares 
that,  were  the  object  of  the  Redeemer  merely  to  signify  the 
strenglli  of  his  faith,  he  could  have  found  many  images  calcu- 
lated for  that  purpose,  but  he  was  pleased  to  communicate  his 
own  name  peculiarly,  that  as  he  himself  was  called  the  rock, 
Peter  might  be  designated  a  rock  likewise: — '*  the  rock  on 
which  the  Church  was  to  be  built,"  as  TertuUian  elsewhere 
expresses  it: — "  Pclrum  acdificunda;  ecclesia?  pctram  dictum."* 

I  know  not  why  you  have  quoted  the  passage  from  his  '*  Ex- 
iiortalion  to  Chastity,"  wherein  he  argues  against  second  mar- 
riages, because  one  who  has  been  twice  married  is  not  eligible 
to  the  priesthood.  In  his  anxiety  to  sustain  tlie  error  of  Mon- 
tanus,  he  says  that  laymen  also  are  priests,  that  the  distinction 
between  the  clergy  and  laity  has  been  eslablisiied  by  the 
Churci),  and  that  the  laity  can  baptize  and  perform  other 
sacerdotal  functions,  when  no  priest  is  to  be  had.  Are  these, 
sir,  your  sentiments  ?  or  have  they  any  thing  to  do  with  the 
question  now  before  us  ?  Again,  I  beg  to  remind  you,  that 
whatever  is  advanced  in  support  of  an  exi)loded  error,  carries 
with  it  no  authority. 

When  TertuUian,  writing  against  Marcion,  asks:  "What 
key  had  tlie  doctors  of  the  law,  but  the  interpretation  of  the 
law?"  he  speaks  of  the  Jewish  doctors,  who  in  virtue  of  their 
office  and  profession,  might  be  said  to  have  the  key  of  know- 
ledge, but  who,  nevertheless,  as  he  subjoins,  ''  neither  advanced 
to  understand  it,  nor  sullered  others  to  approach."!  It  is  surely 
unwarrantable  to  apply  to  a  controverted  text  of  Scripture  a 
figurative  expression  used  by  an  author,  two  centuries  after- 
wards, without  the  least  reference  to  the  text  in  question.  He 
speaks  of  the  key  of  knowlcd:;e  :  "  clavem  agnitionis  habens  :|" 
Christ  promised  to  Peter  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

"     TrrtuUian  do  prtrs.  huT. 

i     Tcrtul.  adv.  Marcion,  1.  iv.  p.  5J'.>.   Kd.  Luteliu',  444,  in  the  edition 
used  by  Hisliop  Hopkins. 
X     Ibid. 


88  TERTULLIAN. 

The  passage,  wherein  the  author  says  that  every  confessor 
of  the  faith  will  carry  with  him  the  keys  of  heaven,  which  "  the 
Lord  left  to  Peter,  and  through  him  to  the  Church,"  is  one  of 
the  numberless  instances  in  which  the  Fathers,  supposing  the 
literal  sense  as  well  known,  take  occasion  to  recommend  virtue 
by  a  moral  application  of  the  text.  Protestant  critics,  and  all 
conversant  with  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  know,  as  Gerard 
remarks,  that  even  "  when  they  stick  to  the  literal  sense,  they 
study  not  so  much  to  determine  it  with  accuracy,  as  to  ac- 
commodate the  most  obvious  meaning  to  their  subject,  or  to 
apply  it  to  practical  purposes  in  a  rhetorical  manner."*  Thus 
Tertullian  says :  "  Know  that  the  ascent  to  heaven  has  been 
rendered  smooth  by  the  footsteps  of  the  Lord,  and  that  its 
entrance  has  been  thrown  open  by  the  power  of  Christ,  and 
that  Christians  will  meet  with  no  delay,  and  be  subject  to  no 
examination  at  its  threshold,  since  they  have  not  there  to  be 
distinguished,  but  they  are  merely  to  be  recognised,  and  are  not 
to  be  questioned,  but  admitted  :  for  if  you  think  that  heaven  is 
still  shut,  call  to  mind  that  the  Lord  here  left  its  keys  to  Peter, 
and  through  him  to  the  Church,  which  keys  every  one  who 
is  here  questioned,  and  who  confesses  the  faith,  will  bring 
along  with  him."t  The  author  here  applies  to  the  confession 
of  the  faith  and  martyrdom,  what  in  its  literal  and  obvious 
meaning  must  be  understood  of  power  peculiarly  granted  to 
Peter,  as  he  himself  elsewhere  declares. :{:  You  say  that  we 
have  in  this  and  other  passages  "  an  interesting  variety  in  the 
idea;"  but  candour  will  also  force  you  to  avow,  that  the 
mystical  interpretations,  in  which  this  variety  is  found,  must 
be  corrected  or  explained  by  those  passages  of  the  author  in 
which  the  literal  sense  is  clearly  pointed  out.  You  furnish  us 
with  a  splendid  testimony  in  favour  of  the  authority  of  the 
Roman  Church,  the  depositary  of  the  doctrine  and  power  of 
Peter:  "Come  then,"  says  Tertullian,  in  the  passage  which 
you  quote,  "  you  who  wish  to  exercise  your  curiosity  to  more 

*     Gerard,  6G9.  t     Tertullian  Scorpiace,  p.  628. 

J     Tertul.  1.  de  pudicitia,  p.  743,  supra  cit. 


ROMAN  CIILRCir.  80 

advantage  in  llic  ailair  of  salvalion,  go  llirougli  ihe  Aposlolic 
Churclie:?,  in  which  the  very  chairs  of  the  Apostk's  coniinue 
aloft  in  their  places,  in  which  their  very  original  letters  are 
recited,  sounding  forlii  the  voice,  and  representing  tlic  counte- 
nance of  each  one.  Is  Achaia  near  you  ?  You  have  Corinth. 
If  you  are  not  far  from  Macedon,  you  have  Philippi,  you  have 
Thessalouica.  If  you  c:in  go  to  Asia,  you  have  Ephesus.  If 
you  are  near  Italy,  you  have  Uonie,  whence  authority  is  at 
hand  for  us.*  How  happy  is  this  Cliurcii  to  which  the  Apostles 
poured  fortii  their  whole  doctrine  with  their  blood!  where 
Peter  is  assimilated  to  the  Lonl  in  his  martyrdom:  where 
Paul  is  crowned  witli  a  death  like  that  of  John:  where  John 
the  Apostle,  after  he  had  been  dipped  in  boiling  oil  without 
suffering  injury,  is  banisiicd  to  the  island  :  let  us  sec  what 
this  Church  learned,  wiiat  she  taught,  what  she  professed  in 
her  symbol  in  common  with  the  African  churches."*^  You 
say  that  there  is  not  in  this  testimony  "  any  tiling  that  looks  like 
ihe  Roman  Church  having  a  superior  authority  !"  What,  then, 
is  the  meaning  of  the  words,  that  "  from  llience  authority  was 
at  hand"  for  Tertullian  and  his  fellow  believers  in  Africa? 
Why  does  he  pass  rapidly  over  the  other  churches  founded  by 
the  Apostles,  preserving  still  their  chairs,  and  their  epistles,  and 
when  he  has  reached  the  Roman  Church  pause,  exclaim  in 
raptures,  how  happy  is  she  in  possessing  tiic  abundant  treasure 
of  Apostolic  doctrine,  and  appeal  to  her  tradition,  to  her  teach- 

•  "  Si  autem  Italia?  adjaccs,  habcs  Roiiiam,  undo  nobis  quoque  aulho- 
ritas  pra-slo  est.  Ista  quam  felix  ccclesia,  cui  totain  doctrinaiii  npos- 
toli  cum  sanguine  suo  profuderunt :  ubi  Petrus  passioni  Dominica) 
adcequatur  :  ubi  Paulus  Joannis  exitu  coronalur  :  ubi  apostolus  Joannes 
posteaciuam  in  oleum  igneum  demersus,  nihil  passus  est,  in  insulam 
relegatur:  videanms  quid  didiccrit,  quid  docuerit,  cum  Africanis  quoqui' 
ecclcsiia  contesserarit."  The  translation  used  or  given  by  Bishop  Hop- 
kins is  any  thing  but  correct :  *'  where  Peter  was  made  equal  to  the  en- 
durance of  the  passion  of  his  Lord,  where  Paul  was  crowned  (with 
martyrdom)  at  the  exile  of  John  :  where  the  Apostle  John  was  afterwards 
plunged  into  boiling  oil,  and  suffering  nothing,  was  banished  loan  island 
Let  us  sec,  too,  what  one  mifjht  learn,  what  he  iniirlit  teach,  when  h< 
should  also  have  compared  his  Hymb«jl  with  the  churches  of  Africa." 
H* 


90  TERTULLIAN. 

ing,  to  her  solemn  profession  of  faith,  in  which  she  was  the 
guide  of  the  African  churches,  her  docile  children  ?  Could  we 
say  more  in  her  praise  ?  Need  we  claim  for  her  higher  pre- 
rogative ?  She  is  the  Church  whose  symbol  is  the  great  watch- 
word of  faith,  and  with  which  the  African  churches  harmonize, 
*'  because  with  her,  on  account  of  her  more  powerful  princi- 
pality," as  Irenaeus  has  already  taught  us,  "  every  church  must 
agree." 

I  shall  not  interfere  with  your  vindication  of  Tertullian  from 
the  charge  of  Montanism.  The  extracts  already  given  show 
his  sentiments  on  monogamy,  the  pardon  of  penitent  adulterers, 
and  the  prophecies  of  Montanus,  Priscilla  and  Maximilla.  It 
remains  only  to  advert  to  his  celebrated  maxim,  which  you 
quote :  "  What  is  first,  is  true ;  and  what  is  subsequent,  is 
adulterated."  Listen  now  to  its  application  from  himself: 
*'  Since  it  is  evident,  that  what  is  true  is  first,  that  what  is  first 
is  from  the  beginning,  that  what  is  from  the  beginning  is  from 
the  Apostles,  it  also  must  be  equally  manifest,  that  what  is  held 
sacred  in  the  Apostolic  Churches  must  have  been  delivered  by 
the  Apostles.  Let  us  see  with  what  milk  the  Corinthians  were 
fed  by  Paul ;  according  to  what  standard  the  Galatians  were  re- 
formed ;  and  what  instructions  were  given  to  the  Philippians, 
Thessalonians,  and  Ephesians  ;  what  also  the  Romans  proclaim 
in  our  ears,  they  to  whom  Peter  and  Paul  left  the  Gospel  sealed 
with  their  blood."*  You  may  remark,  that  the  appeal  to  the 
other  churches  chiefly  regards  the  Apostolic  letters  directed  to 
them,  whilst  the  faith  of  Rome,  as  loudly  proclaimed,  is  spe- 
cially referred  to;  for  by  its  tradition  coming  down  unchanged, 
by  the  succession  of  bishops,  from  its  glorious  founders,  all 
errorists  and  sectarists  are  confounded. 


*  Tertullian,  1.  iv.  adv.  Marcionem,  p.  505.  "  Quid  etiam  Romani 
de  proximo  sonent,  quibus  evangelium  et  Petrus  et  Paulus  sanguine 
quoque  suo  signatum  reliquerunt." 


LETTER  VII. 
CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

It  is  a  rule  of  sound  criticism,  that,  where  positive  docu- 
ments in  proof  of  any  fact  exist,  the  argument  wliicli  is  derived 
from  tlie  silence  of  some  individual  should  not  easily  be  re- 
ceived. This  species  of  negative  argument  has  no  weight  but 
in  the  absence,  or  deficiency,  of  positive  proof,  and  when  the 
silence  can  in  no  way  be  accounted  for,  except  by  supposing 
that  the  fact  had  no  existence.  As  we  have  abundant  positive 
evidence  of  the  Primacy,  you  might  have  dispensed  with  this 
uncertain  and  unsatisfactory  line  of  argumentation.  You,  ne- 
vertheless, devote  a  whole  chapter  to  *'  the  testimony"  of  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  though  you  avow  that  "  it  is  purely  nega- 
tive." To  you  it  appears  decisive  ;  because,  had  the  Primacy 
been  then  admitted,  Clement  "  could  not,"  you  say,  "  have 
avoided  a  plain  statement  of  the  fact,  or,  at  least,  some  intelligi- 
ble allusions  to  it."  It  should  be  recollected,  that  several  of  his 
works,  mentioned  by  the  ancients,  are  no  longer  extant,  so  that 
it  cannot  be  asserted,  with  certainty,  that  he  did  not  in  any  way 
treat  of  the  Primacy.  In  his  Ilypotijposes,  a  work  which  is 
lost,  but  of  which  Eusebius  has  preserved  some  fragments,  he 
carefully  distinguished  Cephas,  whom  Paul  reproved  at  Anti- 
och,  from  the  Apostle  Peter.*  In  his  Stromata,  or  Miscella- 
nies, which  are  still  extant,  he  speaks  of  his  instructors,  who 
"  guarded  with  care  the  genuine  tradition  of  Apostolic  doctrine, 
which,  as  children  from  their  parents,  they  had  received  in  un- 

'     EusebiuH,  1.  i.  hist.  c.  xii- 


92  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

interrupted  succession  from  the  holy  Apostles,  Peter,  James, 
John  and  Paul."*  The  precedency  of  Peter,  so  remarkable 
here,  and  generally  in  the  Scriptures  and  Fathers,  shows  the 
harmony  of  Clement  on  this  point  with  all  antiquity.  This 
work,  as  well  as  such  otlier  of  his  works  as  are  extant,  is  chiefly 
directed  to  confound  the  Gentiles,  Jews,  and  pseudo-Gnostics, 
and  to  set  forth  the  character  of  the  true  Gnostic  or  Christian. 
It  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  that  the  organization  of  the 
Church  should  not  be  developed  in  them,  nor  the  relative  pov^^ers 
of  its  prelates  determined.  The  passage  which  you  adduce 
from  the  seventh  book  is  irrelevant,  for  nothing  is  said  in  it 
which  can  warrant  any  inference  against  the  Primacy.  Treat- 
ing of  an  objection  urged  against  Christians  by  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, derived  from  the  discordance  of  Christian  sects,  he  re- 
torted on  them,  and  referred  to  the  divisions  which  were  found 
in  Judaism  and  paganism.!  He  afterwards  observed,  that  "  we 
must  not,  on  account  of  the  dissentions,  transgress  the  eccle- 
siastical rule, "J  and  that  those  who  desire,  can  find  out  truth, 
which  is  capable  of  proof  and  demonstration.  This  being  the 
case,  "  the  questions  must  be  examined,  and  from  the  Scriptures 
themselves  we  must  learn  demonstratively  how  the  heresies 
have  fallen  away,  and  how  in  truth  alone,  and  in  the  ancient 
Church,  is  most  accurate  knowledge. "§  On  this  you  remark, 
that  the  ancient  Church  signifies  here,  as  in  Irenajus  and  Ter- 
tuUian,  the  Church  as  it  was  first  planted,  without  distinction 
of  place,  or  of  one  Apostle  over  another.  You  know,  how- 
ever, that  Irenseus  speaks  specially  and  distinctly  of  the  Church, 
"  founded  by  the  most  glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul ;"  and 
that  TerluUian  likewise  makes  distinct  reference  to  it.  Clement 
speaks  of  the  same  Church,  since,  in  the  passage  which  you 
have  quoted,  he  says,  that  it  is  easy  to  prove  that  heretical  con^ 


*  Clemens  Alex.  1.  i.  Strom,  p.  17. 

t  Strom.  1.  vii.  §  xv.  p.  511.  Ed.  Wirceb. 

t  lb.  p.  513.     arai  kai  Hfjietc  kxta  fxn^tvu.  t^ottoi  rov  EKK\ntrid.?-tKOV 

§  lb.  1.  vii.  p.  755,  p.  517.  Edit.  Wirceb. 


UMTV  OF  THE  CHURCH.  y3 

venticles  are  posterior,  in  point  of  lime,  to  the  Catholic  Church,* 
from  the  very  fact  that  the  ministry  of  Paul  was  consuinnialed 
under  Nero,  whilst  Basilitles  broached  iiis  heresy  only  under 
the  elder  Antonine, — Glaucias,  who  was  an  interpreter  of  Peter, 
having  been  his  teacher,  and  "  Simon  Maf^us  himself  having 
listened  for  a  time  to  the  preaching  of  Peter."  The  reference 
to  these  Apostles  especially,  rather  than  to  St  John,  who  sur- 
vived both,  shows  that  the  ancient  Church,  of  which  Clement 
treats,  is  that  which  was  founded  by  these  Apostles,  and  was 
guided  by  their  doctrine.  'I'he  churches  of  all  Christendom 
were  in  communion  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  formed  that 
one  ancient  and  Catholic  Church,  which  was  prior  to  all  here- 
sies. *»  This  being  the  fact,t  it  is  clear,"  continues  the  author, 
"  from  the  most  ancient  and  true  Church,  that  these  later  here- 
sies, and  such  as  are  still  more  recent,  are  marked  as  innova- 
tions of  spurious  origin.  From  what  has  been  said,  I  think  it 
manifest  that  the  true  Church  is  one,  that  which  is  truly  an- 
cient, in  which  are  enrolled  those  who  are  just,  according  to 
the  divine  purpose."  The  two  following  sentences  are  omit- 
ted in  your  (}uotation,  but  serve  to  show  how  essential  unity 
was  deemed  by  Clement:  "  for  as  there  is  one  God  and  one 
Lord,  on  this  account  what  is  highly  venerable  is  praised  for 
unity,  being  the  imitation  of  the  principle  which  is  one.  The 
one  Church  is,  then,  associated  with  the  nature  of  the  one  Be- 
ing, which  Church  heresies  endeavour  to  divide  into  many.j 
In  its  essence,  therefore,  in  its  conception,  in  its  principle,  and, 
by  reason  of  its  excellence, §  we  say,  that  there  is  one  only  an- 
cient and  Catholic  Church,  gathering  together  into  the  unity  of 
the  one  faith,  according  to  her  own  covenants,  or  rather,  ac- 
cording to  the  one  covenant,  at  dilTcrent  limes,  by  the  counsel 

"     Strom.  1.  vii,  §  xv.  p.  539. 

t  (kr  luTU(  ip^orTar.  "  Quoj  cum  ita  habcant."  Bishop  Hopkins  trans- 
lates it:  "  which  things  if  they  were  bo  I" 

\  T)i  ym  TK  iroc  <;>u7ti  9uyn.Xn^>iTxi  ExxMtff-igt  >i  fxitt,  ni  u:  TroXKtc 
KXToLitfxtnf  0n^ctraii  «i^iy«/c.     Stromal.  1.  vii.  p.  539. 

§      K*Tat    Tjjr     uirorurir,  »siTct   ti    'frircur,    kata    rt   a^^^^r,  jtarat   ri 


94  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

of  the  one  God,  and  through  the  one  Lord,  those  who  are  al- 
ready preordained,  whom  God  predestined,  having  known,  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  they  would  be  just.  And 
the  eminence  of  the  Church,  as  well  as  the  principle  of  its  con- 
struction, is  from  unity,  surpassing  all  other  things,  and  liaving 
notliing  like  or  equal  to  it."*  He  adds,  that  "  as  the  doctrine 
of  all  the  Apostles  was  the  same,  so  likewise  tlieir  tradilion.t 
Though  in  this  long  and  beautiful  passage,  tlie  Primacy  of  Peter 
is  neither  asserted  nor  denied,  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  re- 
presented so  forcibly,  that  I  am  glad  you  quoted  it.  Of  that 
unity  Peter  was  the  guardian  ;  but  the  mention  of  this  was  not 
so  well  calculated  to  convince  or  confound  heretics,  as  to  object 
to  them  the  notorious  fact  of  their  recent  origin.  The  silence 
of  Clement  on  the  supremacy  of  Peter  is  therefore  easily  under- 
stood, and  perfectly  reconcilable  with  his  admission  of  that  doc- 
trine. We  often  use  a  similar  argument  against  innovators,  as 
we  are  sensible  that  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  can  be  effec- 
tually employed  only  against  those  who  already  admit  it.  The 
very  antiquity  of  a  doctrine  forms  a  presumption  in  its  favour, 
not  to  be  removed,  unless  by  positive  evidence  of  its  origin  at 
a  period  subsequent  to  the  Apostolic  age.  We  say  then,  with 
Clement,  that  the  ancient  Church  is  the  only  true  Church,  and 
that  the  fact  of  the  posterior  origin  of  the  sects,  is  at  once  the 
refutation  of  all  their  claims.  You  observe,  that  "  he  refers  this 
unity  to  its  substance,  its  knowledge,  its  beginning,  its  excel- 
lency, and  to  the  unity  of  the  faith,  as  handed  dow-n  to  the 
Apostles."  If  you  mean  to  insinuate  that  he  admits  any  di- 
versity of  doctrine,  and  limits  unity  to  some  points  of  high  im- 
portance, you  mistake  his  meaning,  since  he  complains  of  here- 
sies, as  violently  endeavouring  to  divide  into  many  parts  that 
Church,  whose  unity  is  an  emblem  of  the  unity  of  God.  When 
he  says,  that  it  is  one  in  substance,  it  is,  as  the  Latin  interpre- 

*      P.  540.      a\Kct     }cu)     «     i^^X^     "^"f    (KKK>lO-lsti    KdB-ctTTSp     »     agPC"    '^^^ 
<rv<>cL(nm(r,    kxtsl    tuv  fAcvuJ'x  er/v,  TreivrA   ra.  oihha.   v7ri^0A\xou(rct.,   kai 

t     Ibid. 


CANON  OF   INTF.RPRKTATIOV.  95 

ler  has  rendcretl  it,  in  essence,  that  is,  cssontially  oiio.  'J'lie  term 
gives  no  ^^rouiul  whatever  for  understanding  it  of  unity  on  some 
particuUir  points.  When  lie  adds,  that  it  is  one  in  idea,  or  con- 
ception, he  speaks  of  the  idea  which  we  necessarily  conceive  of 
it,  according  to  its  divine  institution.  In  saying  that  it  is  one 
in  its  principle,  he  means  God,  from  whom  it  emanates,  of 
whose  unity  it  is  an  imitation.*  Il  is  finally  one  in  excellence, 
for  it  far  surpasses  all  human  institutions,  none  of  which,  whe- 
ther they  be  the  conventicles  of  sects,  or  civil  establishments, 
presents  any  thing  equal,  or  like  this  divine  institution.  '*  Con- 
fingantlale  aliquid  haeretici!" 

Availing  yourself  of  the  figure  of  tlic  key  which  Clement  uses, 
you  assert,  that  "it  is  manifest  that  Clement  regards  the  keys 
in  the  sense  which  Tcrtullian  recognises,  namely,  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture."   I  have  already  shown  that  TertuUian  did 
not  at  all  speak  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  given  to 
Peter,  when  he  used  liie  figure  of  a  key,  but  spoke  of  the  Jew- 
ish doctors,  who,  not  having  the  key  of  knowledge,  did  not  in- 
terpret the  Scripture  correctly.     Figurative  expressions  being 
applicable  to  an  infinite  variety  of  objects,  of  the  most  dissimilar 
nature,  it  is  not  at  all  warrantable  to  apply  to  one  object  what 
may  have  been  said  of  another,  merely  because  the  same  meta- 
phor is  applied  to  both.     It  is  inconsistent  with  every  rule  of 
sound  interpretation,  to  explain  the  Scriptural  texts  by  passages 
of  the  Fathers,  having  no  relation  whatever  to  them,  except  the 
accidental  employment  of  a  similar   metaphor,  for   purposes 
widely  diflerent.     Clement  says  that,  **  the  Gnostic  alone," — 
by  which  term   he   understands  the   enlightened  Christian, — 
"  who  had  grown  old  in  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  had  pre- 
served the  Apostolical  and  ecclesiastical  rule  of  correct  dogmas, 
lives  properly  a(!cording  to  the  Gospel  ;"t   and   he    warns  his 
readers,  "  that  we  must  not  imitate  the  followers  of  heresy,  and 


^^  fjLifxtifjL*    if   a^^nc    TXfl"   fxixc."      I'..':?-'. 

T*y.    P.  r»:M. 


96  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

adulterate  truth,  or  steal  away  the  rule  of  the  Church  ;"*  after 
which  he  thus  introduces  the  figure  to  which  you  have  made  re- 
ference :  *'  those,  then,  who  are  imbued  with  impious  princi- 
ples, and  deliver  them  to  others,  and  who  employ  the  divine 
words,  not  properly,  but  in  a  perverse  manner,  neither  enter 
themselves  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  nor  suffer  those  whom 
they  deceive  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  But  they 
themselves  not  having  the  key  of  entrance,  but  a  false  key,  and, 
as  is  usually  said,  an  anti-key,  by  means  of  which,  not  being 
able  to  raise  up  the  veil,  as  we  who  enter  in  by  means 
of  the  tradition  of  the  Lord,  they  cut  down  the  side  door,  and 
clandestinely  break  through  the  wall  of  the  Church,  passing  over 
the  truth,  become  the  initiators  of  the  spirit  of  the  impious."! 
Here  Clement  speaks  of  divine  tradition  as  the  key  to  the  di- 
vine Scriptures,  for  the  want  of  which  heretics  cannot  raise  the 
veil ;  wherefore  they  rush  forward,  trampling  under  foot  reveal- 
ed truth,  and  breaking  down  the  wall  of  Church  authority.  Who 
can  hence  infer,  that  when  Christ  promised  to  Peter  the  keys 
of  his  kingdom,  with  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  he  meant 
no  more  than  the  tradition  by  which  Scripture  might  be  ex- 
plained ? 

No  note  of  distinction  among  the  Apostles,  as  you  observe, 
is  added  by  Clement  in  the  passage  which  you  quote  from  the 
fourth  book  of  the  Stroinata,  wherein  he  speaks  of  the  Apos- 
tles :  but  this  is  not  surprising,  for  even  we,  when  we  have 
occasion  to  speak  of  the  Apostles  in  common,  are  not  accustom- 
ed to  distinguish  Peter  from  the  other  members  of  the  Apostolic 
college.  A  striking  distinction  was  made  by  our  Redeemer 
himself,  in  the  text  which  Clement  thus  refers  to,  and  which 
you  have  passed  over  in  your  quotation  :  '*  Martyrdom,  then, 
seems  to  be  the  purification  of  sins  with  glory.  The  shepherd 
[Hernias)  says  particularly  :  "  You  will  escape  the  fangs  of  the 
wild  beast,  if  your  heart  be  pure  and  faultless  ;  but  even  the  Lord 
himself  says:    Satan  has  sought  you,  to  sift  you;   but  I  have 

*       t«f«    fX»\l    KXiVTitV    TOr    KOLVOVA    T«f    EjC»X>fC"/Ctf .       P-  536. 

t      p.  538.     juv^etyceyoi   t«?  rav   u<rfSi»v   -^u^^i. 


FAVOURABLE  TO  THE   PRIMACY.  Vt 

prayed.  The  Lord,  therefore,  alone  drank  the  chalice,  for  ihe 
purification  of  those  men  who  laid  snares  for  him,  and  of  unbe- 
lievers :  in  imitation  of  whom  the  Apostles,  as  being  truly  Gnos- 
tics and  perfect  men,  sullercd  for  the  Churches  which  they 
founded."*  It  is  manifest  that  Clement  treats  of  the  martyrdom 
of  the  Apostles,  and  not  of  their  official  character  or  relative 
powers  :  consequently,  there  was  no  reason  wliy  he  should  dis- 
linguisli  Peter  from  the  rest.  As  to  the  epithets  '•  good,"  "  no- 
ble," ''  divine,"  which  Clement  applies  to  Paul,  they  aflbrd  no 
ground  for  calling  the  Primacy  of  Peter  in  question.  Both 
Apostles  might  receive  these  appellations  without  prejudice  to 
truth,  or  to  the  higher  prerogative  of  Peter ;  and  if  they  happen 
not  to  be  applied  to  this  Apostle,  the  circumstance  is  too  trivial 
to  ofler  evefi  the  shadow  of  an  argument. 

The  writings  of  Clement,  which  are  extant,  contain  then  no- 
thing whatever  against  the  Primacy,  and  much  in  confirmation 
of  the  authority  of  the  one  ancient.  Apostolic,  and  only  true 
Church.  The  loss  of  his  other  works,  especially  his  Hypoty- 
POSEs,  is  to  be  regretted,  as,  from  fragments  quoted  by  Euse- 
bius  and  John  Moschus,  we  learn,  that  in  them  he  stated  the 
distinction  between  C'ephas  the  disciple  and  Peter,  and  nar- 
rated that  Christ  baptized  Peter  alone.t  and  that  Peter  baptized 
Andrew  :  also  that  Peter  sanctioned  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and 
authorized  it  to  be  read  in  the  Churches. t  Whatever  weight 
may  be  given  to  his  testimony  on  liiese  points,  it  is  manifestly 
favourable  to  the  Primacy. 

•  Clemens  Alex.  Strom.  1.  iv.  §  0,  p.  571  Edit.  Wirceb.  p.  503. 
Edit.  H. 

t     L.  5.  Hypotyp.  cit.  in  prato  spir.  c.  171). 

X     L.  (i.  Hypotyp.  apud  Euseb.  1.  'i,  Hist.  Ecci.  c.  15. 


LETTER  YIIL 


ORIGEN. 


Right  Re^tirend  Sir  : 

We  pass  from  Clement  of  Alexandria,  one  of  the  most  learned 
of  the  Fathers,  to  Origen,  the  most  illustrious  of  his  disciples. 
You  invite  our  attention  to  his  application  of  the  figure  of  the 
keys  :  "  First,  then,  let  us  look  at  a  fine  application  of  the  figure 
of  the  keys,  which  will  prove,  in  accordance  with  the  other 
Fathers,  how  well  this  term  was  understood  to  signify  the  sci- 
ence of  interpretation.  On  account  of  its  obscurity,  says  Origen, 
the  whole  Scripture,  divinely  inspired,  is  like  to  many  chambers 
within  one  house,  but  when  the  key  applied  to  each  chamber 
is  not  fitted  to  it,  the  keys  become  scattered  through  the  cham- 
bers, not  answering  to  those  chambers  to  which  they  are  ap- 
plied ;  and  it  is  truly  a  difficult  work  to  find  the  proper  keys, 
and  adapt  them  to  the  locks,  so  that  they  may  open  them  ;  thus 
it  is  that  the  more  abstruse  Scriptures  are  to  be  understood, 
the  argument  of  our  knowledge  being  taken  no  otherwise  than 
from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  v/hich  have  dispersed  amongst 
them  the  reasons  of  their  exposition."*  Those  of  your  readers 
who  may  have  thought  this  to  be  the  interpretation  of  il:f;  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  given  to  Peter,  may  be  surprised  to 
learn  that  it  has  not  the  remotest  connexion  with  them,  and  is 
a  similitude  borrowed  by  Origen  from  a  .Jew.  It  is  found  in 
the  preface  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Psalms,  and  is  preceded 
by  these  words :  "As  we  are  about  to  enter  on  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Psalms,  we  shall  premise  an  excellent  observation 

*   ?.  102. 


KMT5  or  WTEWltETATlOX.  19 

gentnUj  oo  the  whole  dirine  Scripture,  made  lo  os  by  a  Jew. 
He  said  that  the  whole  dirinely  inspired  Scripture,  oa  accooat 
of  its  obscaritT,  is  like  to  many  chambers,  ^c.***  To  addoee 
this  similitude  to  prove  that  the  term  of  the  keys  was  nader- 
stood  by  Origen  to  signify  the  science  of  interpretatioo,  is  swely 
calculated  to  nislead.  Clear  texts  may  be  aptly  called  keys  of 
obscure  pa>  -  :  the  use  of  such  a  meuphor,  by  a  Jew,  or 

by  a  Fathe .  norch,  does  not  at  all  imply  that  the  keys 

of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  specially  promised  to  Peter  in  re- 
ward of  his  faiih.  mean  no  more  than  dear  texts,  whereby  he 
raifht  amre  at  the  real  meaning  of  passages  which  for  others 
woold  be  obscure.  If  yon  would  sabetitnte  the  words,  "  dear 
texts'*  for  **  the  keys  of  the  heavenly  kingdoB' *  in  the  pumy 
of  Si  Mauhew,  you  will  see  the  revolting  incoosislniey  of  this 
far-fetched  interpretation. 

Did  I  suppose  you  to  have  designedly  omitted  the  prefatory 
portion  of  the  sentence,  which  so  clearly  explains  its  source 
and  determines  its  meaning.  I  should  smile  at  the  following 
apology  which  precedes  the  next  passage:  '•It  will  require  a 
very  long  extract  to  do  it  justice,  but  no  labour  should  be  thought 
too  great  for  the  aearchei  after  tn2th.**t  Besides  pervsiBf  loag 
extracts,  it  is  also  desirable  that  the  inquirer  should  rmwidrr 
the  custom  of  the  Fathers  in  general,  but  especially  of  OrigeSv 
to  indv '  -stations  of  Sacred  Scripture,  eil- 

coatee  virtue,  but  which  neither  he«  nor 

the  other  Fathers,  ever  wished  to  have  substituted  for  the  literal 
and  obvious  meaning  of  the  text.  Thus  he  wouU  easilT  um- 
defstand  how  it  was  that  Origen,  in  the  pussage  io  questiou, 
takes  occasion  from  the  profession  of  faith  made  by  StmoBv  aud 
the  appellation  of  *'  rock**  given  him  by  his  divine  Master,  lo 
obserre  that  if  we  confess  Christ,  under  the  same  heuvealy  in< 
fluence,  we  also  will  be  a  Peter,  or  rock  oi  faith.  In  this  I 
discover  nothing  favouraMe  to  your  interprets  tic  n,  for  Or  j*" 
expressly  understands  the  original  words  of  Peter,  and  iJ 
nes  n»rf*<  and  n»Tp«,  which  you  labour  so  smnnoiisly  to  ^>' 

*  Ocig^  in  Pnlww,  Pnet  pw  ISS,  T«L  ziiL    E£t.  Wlrofb-j^^ 

•  P    101 


100  ORIGEN. 

tinguish.  "Every  disciple  of  Christ  is  a  rock,  of  whom  they 
drank  who  drank  of  the  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them,  and 
on  every  such  rock  tlie  whole  ecclesiastical  teaching,*  and 
corresponding  government,  is  built:  for  in  each  of  the  perfect, 
who  have  the  collection  of  words,  and  works,  and  thoughts,  the 
Church  is  inwardly  built  by  God."  You  see  clearly  how  your 
author  indulges  in  mysticism,  and,  with  a  view  to  animate  all 
to  the  imitation  of  Peier,  asserts  that  every  just  and  perfect  man 
is  not  only  a  rock,  but  that  his  pious  maxims,  works  and  words, 
form  a  Church,  built  on  him  as  a  foundation.  If  you  please  to 
follow  him  thus  far,  you  are  welcome  to  the  benefit  of  his  tes- 
timony. To  prove  that  others  besides  Peter  could  partake  of 
the  rewards  of  his  faith,  he  asks,  can  it  be  supposed  that  the 
Church  is  built  on  Peter  in  such  a  manner  as  to  exclude  the 
other  Apostles  from  all  participation  in  the  benefits  of  the 
Church,  or  the  privileges  of  the  ministry?  *'If,  indeed,  you 
think  that  the  whole  Church  is  built  by  God  upon  this  one 
Petert  (rock)  only,  what  do  you  say  of  John,  the  son  of  thun- 
der, or  of  each  of  the  Apostles  ?  Shall  we  venture  to  say  that 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  PeterJ  in  particular, 
but  shall  prevail  against  the  other  Apostles,  and  against  the 
perfect  ?  Is  not  what  was  said  previously,  verified  in  regard 
to  all  and  each  one :  '  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it?'  Are  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  given  by  the  Lord 
to  Peter  alone,  and  shall  no  other  of  the  blessed  receive  them  1 
But  if  this  be  common  to  the  others,  '  I  shall  give  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  how  should  not  all  the  things  which 
go  before,  and  follow  after,§  be  common  likewise  1  For  here  it 
seems  to  be  said  to  Peter,  '  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven,  &c.  &c.  Sic. :  but  in  the  Gospel 
of  John,  the  Saviour,  giving  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  disciples  by 

*  O  ix,)i\»(rtu;iKo:  TTsLc  Koycg^  Kctt  «  xsct'  etCrov  Troxmict.  Origenes 
in  Matt.,  Tom.  XII.  p.  516. 

t  E/  Si  iTTl  TOV  fVX  iKilVOV  UiTpOV  VO/Ut^lt;  CtTO  T«  668  OlKoJ'o/Xil^Ctt 
TJfV     WatO-StV     fKKXWlltV    /UCVOV.  t        iSlUiQ. 

§  jratvTet  T*  T6  TTfiotipn/uiva.,  Kcti  ret  iTTipifofxiva..  Bishop  Hopkins 
translates  it :  "  those  things  which  precede  it,  and  which  are  evidently 
connected  with  it." 


APPLICATION  OF  TIIK   WORDS  OF  t  HKIST.  101 

breathing  on  llieni,  s:iys :  Heceivc  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  <fec. 
&€."•  You  are  aware,  that  in  asserting  ilie  priviU'ires  of 
Peter  we  do  not  adopt  the  exclusive  principles  wljich  Origen 
ascribes  to  those  who  doubted  whether  eacii  perfect  man,  imi- 
tating his  faith  and  confession,  might  be,  like  him,  a  rock,  and 
partake  of  the  rewards  bestowed  on  iiim.  "We  believe  him  to 
be  the  chief  foundation  placed  by  the  hand  oflhe  Divine  Archi- 
tect; but  we  regard  all  the  Apostles,  in  a  general  way,  as  the 
foundation  on  which  we  are  built,  Christ  Jesus  himself  being 
the  chief  corner  stone,  as  we  are  taught  by  St  Paul.  We  do 
not  say  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  prevail  against  the  other 
Apostles,  or  the  perfect,  or  the  Church  at  large,  when  we 
assert  that  they  cannot  prevail  agaiiist  the  Kock  on  which  that 
Ciiurcli  is  founded.  We  do  not  claim  lor  Peter  the  power  of 
the  keys — of  binding  and  loosing — so  exclusively  as  to  deny 
to  the  other  Apostles  the  exercise  of  a  similar  power,  though 
we  maintain  that  the  special  address  to  Pcirr  indicates  that  he 
pre-eminently  possesses  it.  Wlien  (Jrigen  says,  the  promise 
that  the  gales  of  hell  phall  not  prevail  against  it,  is  verified  in 
regard  to  every  perfect  man, — lie  is  stilliabouring  to  prove,  by 
ihc  application  of  the  text,  in  a  mystical  sense,  tiiat  each  one 
may  be  a  rock  of  faith  which  no  power  of  hell  may  overthrow. t 
He  expressly  avows  that  the  words,  in  their  literal  sense, 
regard  Peter,  and  are  aj)plicable  toothers  only  in  a  spiritual  or 
myslicalsigniiicalion.  "  if  any  one  say  to  hijn:  '  Thou  art  Clirist, 
ilie  Son  of  the  living  God  ;'  not  taught  by  llesh  and  blood,  but 
by  the  Father  who  is  in  heaven;  he  will  obtaini  what  was 
promised  to  that  Peter,  as  the  letter  of  the  Gospel  says,  but  as 

'     Origi'ii  in  Mai.,  Tom.  \1I.  j).  .'>!(;. 

t  Gerard  remarks  that  "  even  such  of  the  Fathers  as  did  not  wiiolly 
neglect  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture,  are  fond  of  ailcgorizinir  it,  and 
drawing  from  it  mystical  meanings,  which  are  altogether  fanciful,  and 
of  no  use."  G7().  Inst  Bib.  Criticism,  p.  'JOH.  Origen  is  the  first  wliom 
Gerard  mentions  as  indulging  in  tlu'se  niystical  interpolations. 

t     Tit/^iTs/  T*r  (/{Jt/uirttr,   »c  yuir  tc  ■^^t/jLfit.  tk  iuxyytkiH  Ktyu,  irf 6c 
«Kl/rir  Tsr  IIiT^sr,  •;  /•  ts  -rrmifjL*  auth  JUavku,  w§sc  Tsttr*  roy  ■)  trcutrcr 
-Tiio;  i  riiTgoc  mtitoc.     Origen,  t.  xii.  p.  51^. 
I* 


102  ORIGEN. 

its  spirit  teaches,  to  every  one  that  becomes  such  as  that  Peter 
was.  For  all  the  imitators  of  Christ  are  styled  from  the  Rock, 
— the  Spiritual  Rock  which  follows  those  who  are  saved,  that 
they  may  drink  from  it  spiritual  drink,  and  they  are  styled  from 
the  Rock,  as  Christ :  but,  as  being  members  of  Christ,  they 
have  been  designated  Christians  from  his  name,  so  from  the 
Rock,  Peters."*  Conformably  to  his  purpose,  Origen  says, 
that  every  perfect  man  may  be  styled  Peter,  from  the  stead- 
fastness of  his  faith,  and  solidity  of  his  virtue,  as  Christians 
are  so  styled  from  being  incorporated  in  the  mystic  body  of 
Christ.  To  show  that  against  such  a  man  the  powers  of  dark- 
ness cannot  prevail,  he  proceeds :  "  Taking  occasion  from 
these  things,  you  may  say,  that  they  are  denominated  just,  from 
the  justice  of  Christ,  and  wise,  from  the  wisdom  of  Christ; 
and  thus,  from  his  other  names,  you  may  form  epithets  for  the 
saints ;  and  to  all  such  persons  would  be  said  by  the  Saviour 
what  was  said :  '  thou  art  Peter,  &:c.  &;c.  They  shall  not 
prevail  against  it:'  What  does  it  refer  to?  Is  it  the  rock  on 
which  Christ  builds  the  Church,  or  the  Church  ?  or  is  it  the 
Church  and  rock,  as  one  and  the  same  thing  ?  for  the  word  is 
ambiguous.  I  think  the  last  to  be  the  true  meaning :  for  nei- 
ther against  the  rock  on  which  Christ  builds  the  Church,  nor 
against  the  Church,  shall  the  gates  of  hell  prevail ;  as  it  is  im- 
possible to  find  the  track  of  the  serpent  on  the  rock,  according 
to  what  is  written  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  But  if  the  gates 
of  hell  prevail  against  any  one,  such  a  one  cannot  be  the  rock 
on  which  Christ  builds  the  Church,  nor  the  Church  built  by 
Christ  on  the  rock :  for  the  rock  is  not  accessible  to  the  ser- 
pent, and  is  stronger  than  the  gales  of  hell  which  struggle 
against  it;  so  that  on  account  of  its  strength,  the  gates  of  hell 
cannot  prevail  against  it :  and  the  Church,  as  the  building  of 
Christ,  who  wisely  built  it  on  a  rock,  is  impregnable  to  hell's 
gates,  which  prevail  indeed  against  every  man  out  of  the  rock 

ovTSf,  TTU^eevv/uci  ix^ff^^'^Krav  ;^g/r/itv<;/,  Tm-^'n;  tfg,  wiTgo;.  Origen  in 
Matt.,  Tom.  XII.  p.  518. 


APPLICATION  OF  TIIK   WORDS  OF  CHRIST.  103 

and  out  of  the  Church,  but  cannot  eflcct  any  lliinir  against  it. 
Seeing,  then,  that  each  of  the  sins  which  lead  to  Iieli,  is  the  gate 
of  hell  we  shall  understand  tliat  the  soul  which  has  spot,  or 
wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  and  which,  by  reason  of  sin,  is 
neitlicr  holy  nor  spotless,  is  neither  the  rock  on  which 
Christ  builds  the  Church,  nor  the  Church,  nor  a  part  of  the 
C'hurch,  which  Christ  builds  upon  the  rock."*  1  have  added 
to  the  extracts  which  you  have  given,  this  long  passage  from  the 
works  of  this  Father,  that  the  reader  might  have  a  better  oppor- 
tunity than  is  afforded  by  the  passages  you  have  quoted  of  know- 
ing his  real  senlinient.  His  object  was  to  excite  the  faith- 
ful to  imitate  Peter,  that  they  might  be  victorious  over  the  pow- 
ers of  hell.  He  maintains,  that  the  infernal  powers  cannot 
prevail  either  against  the  Church,  or  against  the  rock  of  its 
foundation, — and  passing  from  the  letter  to  the  spirit,  he  con- 
cludes that  they  cannot  prevail  against  any  individual  firm  in 
faith  and  unwavering  in  his  attachment  to  duty.  In  the  same 
mystic  style  of  interpretation,  he  regards  sin  as  the  avenue  or 
gate  of  hell,  and  excludes  every  sinner  from  the  privileges  of 
the  Church  and  rock.  He  admits  that  there  is  a  multitude  of 
men  called  members  of  the  Church,  against  whom  the  gates  of 
hell  will  prevail,  on  account  of  the  vices  to  which  they  are  en- 
slaved. Among  sins,  he  reckons  heresies,  which  he  terms 
gates  of  hell,  that  war  in  vain  against  the  Church.  "Thus 
every  author  of  a  perverse  sentiment  becomes  a  builder  of  a 
gate  of  hell ; — and  the  co-operators  in  the  doctrine  of  the  au- 
thor of  such  things,  are  minisiers  and  dispensers  of  the  per- 
verse teaching,  the  source  of  the  impiety.  But  many  and  num- 
berless as  are  the  gates  of  liell,  no  gate  of  hell  will  prevail 
against  the  rock,  or  the  Church  which  Christ  builds  upon  a 
rock.  And  truly,  each  of  the  heterodox,  who  brings  forth  any 
knowledge,  falsely  so  called,  has  built  a  gate  of  hell.  Marcion 
has  erected  one,  Basilides  another,  and  Valrnlinus  another. "t 
The  author  here  insensibly  returns  to  tlie  literal  meaning,  and 
shows   that    no  efforts   of  heresy  can  destroy   the   Church   of 

•     Origfu  in  Matt.,  Tom.  XII.  p   520.  f   lb.  p.  .^.£2 


104  ORIGEX. 

Christ,  or  the  rock  on  which  it  rests  :  yet  he   does   not  lose 
sight  of  the  moral  application. 

You  give  us  a  few  sentences  which  follow,  and  passing  over 
nearly  a  page,  commence  your  paragraph  as  if  it  was  an  infer- 
ence drawn  by  Origen  from  what  you  had  just  recited.  I  am 
not  disposed  to  complain  of  the  omission  of  the  intervening 
passages  ;  but  in  so  important  an  investigation,  it  was  right  to 
give  some  indication  that  the  connexion  was  not  immediate; 
and  it  was  still  more  necessary  to  avoid  every  thing  which 
might  convey  the  false  idea  of  a  conclusion  drawn  from  pre- 
mises. Instead  of  beginning  the  paragraph  :  "  We  see  by  all 
this,*  how  it  may  be  saidt  to  Peter,  and  to  every  one  who  is 
as  Peter,"  fidelity  to  the  text  required  that  you  should  have 
written  :  *'  Now  (cifter  these  things)  let  us  see  how  it  was  said 
to  Peter,  and  to  every  Peter  :  I  will  give  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  You  must  have  observed  in  the  origi- 
nal,  that  the  article  is  even  prefixed  to  the  name  of  the  Apostle, 
as  being  by  excellence  "  the  rock,"  whilst  the  name  without 
the  article  is  used  to  denote  every  perfect  man  the  imitator  of 
his  faith.J  Blending  the  literal  and  mystical  senses  together,  or 
at  least  giving  the  mystical  interpretation,  without  losing  sight 
of  the  literal,  he  proceeds  to  explain  the  force  of  the  words  as  ap- 
plicable to  the  perfect.  "  In  the  first  place  I  think,  that  to  the 
words,  '  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  il,'  have  been 
rightly  subjoined, §  '  To  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of  ihe  kingdom 
of  heaven  :'  for  he  who  is  defended  agfnJnsi  the  gates  of  hell,  that 
they  may  not  prevail  against  him,  is  worthy  to  receive  from  the 
Word  himself,  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  as  it  were 
for  a  reward,  because  the  gates  of  hell  were  powerless  against 
him  ;  receiving  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  he  may 

*  The  Latin  version  given  by  Bishop  Hopkins  is  different  from  that 
which  hes  before  me.  Instead  of  "  post  hcBC  videmus,"  I  read,  post  hoec 
videamus.  The  Greek  text  shows  that  my  reading  is  correct.  Merst 
TAWTA  iSufj.iv.  t  True  AsxeicTsi/,  how  it  was  said. 

X  The  definite  article  is  also  used  in  the  Syriac,  Arabic  and  Chaldaic 
versions  of  the  text  of  Matthew  xvi.  IG,  ''thou  art  the  rock." 

§  a-KOKn^oci  Mhix^J^i,  Bishop  Hopkins  translates  it:  "  First,  indeed, 
I  think  these  words  are  to  be  connected  with  the  others." 


MYSTICAL  EXPOSITION.  105 

open  to  himself  the  gales  wliich  are  shut  against  such  as  are 
overcome  by  tlie  gates  of  liell ;  and  he  enters  in,  as  chaste 
through  the  gate  of  chastity  opened  by  the  corresponding  key, 
and  as  just  througli  tlie  gate  of  justice,  opened  hy  the  key  of 
justice  ;  and  so  of  tlie  other  virtues."* 

These  mystical  explanations  may  interest  and  edify  the 
pious,  but  cannot  pass  with  any  enlightened  man  for  the 
writer's  view  of  the  literal  meaning  of  the  passages  thus  alle- 
gorized :  nor  are  they  given  as  such  by  their  ingenious  author. 
Further  on  he  says  :  "See  what  power  the  rock  has  on  which 
the  Church  is  built  by  Christ,  and  every  one  has  who  says  : 
*  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,'  so  that  his  judg- 
ments remain  firm,  God  as  it  were  judging  in  him,  so  that  in 
the  very  act  of  judging,  the  gales  of  hell  cannot  prevail  against 
him.t  Therefore,  against  him  who  judges  unjustly,  and  who 
does  not  bind  on  earth  according  to  the  word  of  God,  nor 
looses  on  earth  according  to  his  will,  the  gates  of  hell  prevail  ; 
but  that  man  judges  justly  against  whom  the  gates  of  hell  do 
not  prevail.  For  this  reason  he  has  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  opening  to  those  that  are  loosed  on  earth,  that  even 
in  heaven  they  may  be  loosed  and  free ;  and  shutting  to  those 
who  are  bound  by  his  just  judgment  on  earth,  that  even  in 
heaven  they  may  be  bound  and  condemned.  But  since  those 
who  claim  the  rank  of  the  Episcopacy  use  this  passage,  as 
Peter,  and  having  received  from  the  Saviour  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  teach  that  the  things  bound  by  them,  that 
is,  proscribed,  are  also  bound  in  heaven,  and  the  things  that 
are  pardoned  by  them  are  also  loosed  in  heaven  ;  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  they  speak  correctly  if  iliey  have  the  quality  on 
account  of  whicii  it  was  said  to  that  Peter  :  *  thou  art  a  rock  ;' 
and   if  ihey  be  such  that  upon  them  the  Church  is  built  by 

•     Origon  in  Malt.,  Tom.  XII.  p.  .VJO. 

t  **o»rt  Tate  K§<o"i/c  fjniui  ^i^^iA:  TttTtt,  mc  xjirevTCc  tr  aire*  tit  Si*, 
ittt   it  durm   te$   x^uiir   ^m    Kxrtv^va^mvn  ait/Tk  irukaLi  aVk.      P.  528. 

Bishop  Hopkins  rondors  it:  ''that  his  judirini'nts  may  remain  firm, 
as  of  God,  justified  by  him,  so  tliat  througli  Uiis  judgment  the  gales  of 
hell  may  not  prevail  against  him." 


106  ORIGEN. 

Christ,  and  that  to  them  it  may  be  referred  with  propriety. 
But  the  gates  of  hell  ought  not  to  prevail  against  him  that 
would  bind  and  loose.  If  he  himself  is  bound  fast  by  the  cords 
of  his  sins,  he  binds  and  looses  in  vain.  But  as  God  would 
not  bind  the  man  who  is  not  bound  by  the  cords  of  sin,  so 
neither  would  whoever  is  a  Peter  bind  him.  But  if  any  man, 
not  being  a  Peter,  and  not  having  the  qualities  here  specified, 
thinks  that  he,  like  Peter,  can  bind  on  earth,  so  that  the  things 
which  he  binds  shall  be  also  bound  in  heaven;  and  thinks  tiiat 
he  can  loose  on  earth,  so  that  the  tilings  which  lie  looses  be 
loosed  in  heaven,  such  a  man  is  proud",  not  knowing  the  sense 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  being  puffed  up  with  pride,  he  falls  into 
the  snare  of  the  devil."  You  perceive  tli.at  throughout 
Origen  continues  in  his  favourite  application  of  this  cele- 
brated passage,  but  with  a  distinct  reference  to  its  literal  mean- 
ing: He  admires  the  power  possessed  by  the  rock  on  whom 
the  Church  is  built;  he  declares  his  judgments  firm,  God  as  it 
were  judging  in  him,  and  the  gates  of  hell  being  unable  to 
prevail  against  him  in  the  very  act  of  judgment.  All  this 
literally  regards  Peter,  whom  by  excellence  he  denominates 
0  Tiirpo?  *'  the  Peter."  But  he  extends  it  to  every  one  who, 
with  the  faith  and  fortitude  of  Peter,  confesses  that  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  thus  limitations  become  necessary,  which 
he  ventures  to  apply  even  to  those  who  occupy  the  Episcopal 
chair.  If  bishops  in  general  should  claim  for  themselves  a 
power  of  judgment  like  to  that  of  Peter,  their  claim,  he  says, 
is  admissible,  provided  they  also  be  Peters  :  but  he  protests 
against  a  capricious  exercise  of  that  power,  without  regard  to 
justice.  The  principle  is  true,  that  no  wanton  exercise  of  au- 
thority can  be  defended,  merely  on  the  plea  of  power  received, 
because  that  power  is  necessarily  to  be  exercised  in  conformity 
with  the  maxims  of  sanctity  delivered  by  the  Redeemer  who 
communicated  it.  The  ratification  promised  in  heaven  cannot 
extend  to  what  is  in  manifest  opposition  with  the  will  and  law 
of  the  divine  King. 

Our  readers.  Right  Reverend  Sir,  will  have  no  reason  to 
complain  of  the  paucity  and  brevity  of  our   quotations  from 


ACKNOWLEDGMENT  OF  THK   PRIMACY.  107 

Origen,  but  they  will  be  amply  repaid  for  this  trial  of  their 
patience,  if  they  acquire  a  correct  idea  of  his  sentiments  and 
views  on  this  important  subject.  Were  I  not  afraid  of  appear- 
ing to  allcct  your  oft  rej)eatcd  and  solemn  appeals,  I  would  beg 
of  you  to  divest  yourself  of  every  sectarian  bias,  and  judge  as 
a  scholar  and  a  critic,  of  his  true  meaning.  From  many  errors, 
somewlmt  allecting  the  fidelity  of  your  transhuioii,  I  fear  that 
you  have  hastily  adopted  the  version  of  some  writer  in  whom 
you  have  placed  unnicrilcd  confidence,  or  that  you  have  made 
your  own  version  without  reference  to  the  original  text,  or 
without  sulficient  attention  even  to  the  Latin  interpreter.  Mine 
is  as  literal  and  as  exact  as  I  could  make  it. 

When  not  moralizing,  or  indulging  in  mystic  flights,  he 
stated  in  the  simplest  but  strongest  terms  what  should  forever 
prevent  you  from  bringing  him  forward  as  a  witness  against 
the  Primacy  of  Peter.  "  Peter,"  says  he,  ♦'  on  whom  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  built,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail,  left  one  epistle  generally  admitted."*  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  supreme  authority 
of  Peter,  as  Pastor  of  the  sheep  of  Christ,  is  expressly  aflirmed. 
Speaking  of  the  excellence  of  charity,  he  says:  "  When  the 
supreme  power  to  k'ei\  the  sheep  was  given  to  Peter,  and  the 
Church  was  founded  on  him,  as  on  a  rock,  the  declaration  of  no 
other  virtue  is  required  of  him,  but  of  charily."!  With  these 
facts  and  testimonies  as  kei/s,  you  may  unlock  the  secret 
chambers  of  mysticism,  and  discover  the  meaning  of  those 
texts,  in  which,  passing  by  what  he  regarded  as  obvious  to  all, 
he  showed  his  hearers  the  edification  which  they  should  derive 
from  them. 


*     Apud.  Euseb.  1.  vi.  c.  2a,  Ilidt.  Eccl. 

t  I'elro  cum  Kuiiuna  reruin  de  pascondis  ovibus  traderolur,  ct  super 
ipsum,  vclut  super  terrain,  fundarctur  Ecck'sia,  nullius  alterius  ab  eo 
virtutis  cor)ft'8sio,  nisi  charititiH  cxigitur."  Origen  in  Epist.  ad  Iloin.  1. 
V.  n.  10.  1  have  rendered  on  a  rock,  as  I  find  the  testimony  quoted  by 
Sardagna  svper  pelram,  and  as  the  Scriptural  reference  warrants.  It  is, 
however,  super  terram,  on  the  rurt/i  in  the  edition  fidw  !.••(.  n-  me. 
Wirceburg,  MDCCXCIV.  p.  272. 


108  ORIGEN. 

I  shall  not  say  a  word  to  weaken  the  force  of  your  vindica- 
tion of  Origen's  memory  from  the  imputation  of  heterodoxy. 
For  our  present  purpose  it  is  sufficient  that  he  recognised  the 
Primacy  of  Peter,  and,  through  respect  for  the  See  which  this 
Apostle  made  the  depositary  of  his  power,  he  earnestly  longed 
to  visit  that  most  ancient  Church,  and  gratified  his  wishes  in 
the  days  of  Pope  Zephyrine.  To  Fabian,  his  successor,  as  the 
chief  judge  and  guardian  of  faith,  he  sent  the  declaration  of  his 
faith  when  his  orthodoxy  was  elsewhere  called  in  question. 
For  both  facts  Eusebius  is  my  voucher.* 

You  conclude  your  chapter  on  Origen  by  a  dissertation  on 
his  orthodoxy,  as  if  nothing  remained  for  the  triumph  of  your 
cause  but  to  prove  the  credibility  of  your  witness.  He  has, 
however,  testified  against  you.  He  has  explained  invariably 
of  Peter,  what  you  contend  should  be  referred  to  Christ ;  and 
if  in  his  usual  style  of  mystic  interpretation  he  has  given  a  long 
exhortation  to  perfection  from  the  motive  of  obtaining  rewards 
like  those  of  Peter,  he  has  not  neglected  to  inform  us  that  he 
was  explaining,  according  to  the  spirit,  what  according  to  the 
letter  regards  him  whom  he  emphatically  styles  "  the  Peter." 

*    Euseb.  hist.  1.  vi.  c.  14  and  36. 


LETTER  IX. 

ST  CYPRIAN. 


RiGJiT  Reverend  Sir: 

The  illustrious  Bishop  of  Carthago,  St  Cyprian,  is  llie  next 
witness  brought  forward  by  you  against  the  supremacy  of  Peter 
and  his  successors,  although  you  candidly  acknowledge  that 
several  passages  in  liis  works  look  very  like  our  doctrine.  In 
a  letter  to  his  people,  on  occasion  of  the  schism  of  five  factious 
priests  who  ofTered  the  peace  and  communion  of  the  Church 
to  those  who  had  fallen  from  the  faitii  in  t!ie  persecution,  he 
thus  animadverts  on  their  conduct : — "  They  now  offer  peace, 
who  themselves  have  not  peace.  They  promise  to  bring  back 
and  recall  to  the  Church  those  that  are  fallen,  who  themselves 
have  left  the  Church.  There  is  one  God,  and  one  Christ,  and 
one  Church,  and  one  Chair  founded  by  the  voice  of  the  Lord 
upon  a  rock.*  That  any  other  altar  should  be  erected,  or  a 
new  priesthood  establislied,  besides  that  one  altar  and  one 
priesthood,  is  impossible.  Whoever  gathers  elsewhere  scal- 
tereth.  Whatever  is  devised  by  human  frenzy,  in  violation  of 
the  divine  ordinance,  is  adulterous,  impious,  sacrilegious." 
This  truly  looks  very  like  our  doctrine,  and  cannot,  without 
great  ingenuity,  be  turned  to  any  other  meaning.  As  you  offer 
no  explanation  of  it,  save  that  which  may  be  deduced  from  your 
general  view  of  Cyprian's  sentiments,  I  leave  it  in   its  own 

•  Super  pttram.  It  is  so  given  in  the  edition  of  Basle,  anno  lCy'2\,&n(\ 
in  that  of  \Vircehur|r.  JJishop  Hopkins  reads  Pctrum,  which  probably 
is  the  correct  reading.  Tiie  sense  is  the  same.  St  Cy()r.  ad  pUbein.  cp. 
p.  59. 

X 


110  ST  CYPRIAN. 

simplicity  and  strength,  to  the  candid  consideration  of  every 
inquirer  after  truth,  and  proceed  to  your  next  quotation. 

The  letter  of  St  Cyprian  to  the  bishop  Antonian,  was  written 
in  consequence  of  the  representations  of  Novatian  having  made 
this  bishop  waver  in  his  determination  to  recognise  Cornelius 
as  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  I  will  beg  leave  to  give  somewhat 
more  copious  extracts  than  you  have  furnished  from  this  im- 
portant document.  It  begins  thus  :  "  I  received  your  first  letter, 
most  beloved  brother,  which  firmly  maintains  the  harmony  of 
the  priestly  college,  and  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
inasmuch  as  you  intimate  that  you  hold  no  communion  with 
Novatian,  but  that  you  have  followed  our  counsel  and  are  in 
harmony  with  Cornelius  our  fellow  bishop.*  You  also  wrote 
that  I  should  forward  a  copy  of  the  same  letter  to  Cornelius, 
our  colleague,  that  he  might  lay  aside  all  anxiety,  knowing  that 

YOU    COMMUNICATE    WITH    HIM,    THAT    IS,    WITH    THE    CATHOLIC 

CHURCH."! — This  may  aid  you  to  understand  the  full  force  of 
some  other  passages  in  the  sequel.  The  Bishop  of  Rome,  at 
that  early  day,  was  the  centre  and  bond  of  Catholic  commu- 
nion :  through  him  the  bishops  of  every  part  of  Christendom 
communicated  with  each  other,  and  thereby  formed  that  Epis- 
copal College,  of  which  Cyprian  so  often  speaks, — being  one 
in  its  character,  tendency  and  spirit.  On  hearing  that  Antonian 
had  subsequently  suffered  himself  to  be  m.oved  by  the  repre- 
sentations of  Novatian,  who  calumniated  both  Cornelius  and 
Cyprian,  the  saint  resolved  to  undeceive  him,  and  to  lay  before 
him  all  the  facts  that  were  calculated  to  recall  him  to  Catholic 
unity.  As  to  Cyprian's  own  conduct  in  regard  to  tlie  fallen, 
he  observes,  that  during  the  vacancy  of  the  Roman  See,  he  Jiad 
communicated  his  views  to  the  clergy  of  that  Church,  who 
wrote  to  him  a  letter  approving  of  his  determination:  "This 


*  "  Three  bishops,  who  ordained  Novatian,  the  schismatic  bishop, 
were  deposed,  and  others  ordained  to  succeed  them  by  Cornelius,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  whose  proceedings  in  this  matter  were  generally  approved  all 
over  the  world."     Archbishop  Potter  on  Church  Government,  p.  302, 

t     St  Cyprian,  Ep.  ad  Antonian,  p.  109. 


MEASURES  TOWARDS  THE   FALLEN.  Ill 

letter  (he  observes)  was  dcspalchetl  ihroughoul  the  wliole  world, 
and  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  all  the  churches  and  all  the 
brethren."  This  extraordinary  importance  attached  to  the 
provisional  government  of  that  Church,  if  I  may  be  allowed 
so  to  designate  it,  shows  the  authority  which  ordinarily  be- 
longed to  it,  and  the  extent  of  its  jurisdiction.  After  peace  had 
succeeded  the  persecution,  and  an  opportunity  was  alforded  of 
assembling  the  bishops  of  Africa,  as  Cyprian  had  purposed, 
and  the  Roman  clergy  liad  approved,  the  Council  was  held, 
and  measures  were  adopted  in  which  severity  and  indulgence 
were  ble!ided.  Though  the  number  of  bishops  assembled  was 
great, •  still  they  deemed  it  right  to  communicate  their  judg- 
ment to  the  Koman  Pontiff,  that  it  might  be  strengthened  by  his 
superior  authority.  With  the  deliberation  and  wisdom  which 
have  always  characterized  the  acts  of  the  Holy  See,  Cornelius 
assembled  a  number  of  bishops,  and  declared  his  concurrence 
in  the  measures  of  the  African  prelates.  ♦♦  If  the  number  of 
bishops  in  Africa  (says  Cyprian  to  Antonian)  appear  insuflicient, 
we  wrote  even  to  Rome  on  this  point  to  Cornelius,  our  col- 
league; who  also,  himself,  having  held  a  council  with  many 
bishops,  consented  to  the  same  decree  as  we  had  made,  with 
equal  severity  and  salutary  moderation. "t 

Having  thus  vindicated  himself,  he  proceeds  to  the  case  of 
Cornelius:  "I  come  now,  most  beloved  brother,  to  the  person 
of  Cornelius,  our  colleague,  that  you  may  know  him  truly, 
as  we  do,  and  not  from  the  false  statements  of  malignant  slan- 
derers, but  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  Lord  (lod,  who 
made  him  Bishop,  and  by  the  testimony  of  his  fellow-bishops, 
the  entire  number  of  whom,  throughout  the  whole  world,  has 


Cnpiosus  ppiscftponim  numorus. 
t  "  Cyprian  and  the  council  of  bishops,  of  which  ho  was  president,  in 
their  cpiHtlc  to  two  churches  of  Spain,  whose  bishops  had  lapsed  into 
idolatry,  tells  them,  that  both  they  theuisclves,  and  all  other  bishops  in 
the  whole  world,  and  rAiiTici'i.AUi.Y  Cornemi's,  Hisiior  ok  Romk,  had 
decreed  that  Inpsers  should  be  admitted  to  penitence,  but  not  allowed  to 
continue  among  the  clergy."  Archbishop  Poller  on  Church  Govern- 
ment, p.  34ii,  referring  to  Cyprian,  Ep.  fi7,  p.  81)1 . 


112  ST  CYPRIAN. 

assented  with  perfect  unanimity." — It  appears,  then,  that  the 
whole  body  of  bishops  considered  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  one 
in  whose  election  all  were  interested  ;  and  their  communion  with 
him  followed  from  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  of  his  being  law- 
fully promoted. — "  He  was  made  Bishop  by  many  of  our  col- 
leagues, who  were  at  that  time  in  the  city  of  Rome,  who  sent  to 
us,  on  his  ordination,  honourable  and  laudatory  letters,  distin- 
guished for  the  testimony  which  they  bore  to  his  merit.*  And 
Cornelius  was  made  Bishop  according  to  the  judgment  of  God, 
and  of  his  Christ,  according  to  the  testimony  of  almost  all  the 
clergy,  with  the  suffrage  of  the  people  who  were  present  on 
the  occasion,  and  he  was  selected  from  the  college  of  aged 
priests  and  good  men  ;  when  no  one  had  been  appointed  before 
him,  and  the  place  of  Fabian,  that  is,  the  place  of  Peter,  and 
the  dignity  of  the  priestly  chair  was  vacant:  which  place  being 
occupied  according  to  the  will  of  God,  and  being  strengthened 
by  the  consent  of  us  all,  whoever  now  seeks  to  be  made  bishop 
must  necessarily  be  without,  nor  can  he  have  ecclesiastical  ordi- 
nation who  does  not  hold  the  unity  of  the  Church.  Whoever 
he  be,  though  he  vaunt  himself  and  put  forward  great  claims,  he 
is  a  profane  man,  a  stranger,  he  is  without.  And  since  after 
the  first  there  can  be  no  second,  whosoever  was  made  (bishop) 
after  the  one  who  alone  should  be  such,  is  not  the  second,  but 
he  is  no  bishop.  Finally,  having  received  the  Episcopal  office, 
which  he  did  not  ambition,  or  seize  on,  but  in  conformity  to  the 
will  of  God  who  makes  priests,  how  great  was  his  virtue  in  the 
Episcopacy  which  he  had  received !  how  great  his  fortitude  ! 
how  firm  his  faith !  (which  we  should  intimately  regard  and 
praise  in  simplicity  of  heart)  to  have  sat  intrepid  in  the  sacer- 
dotal chair  at  Rome,  at  a  time  when  the  hostile  tyrant  menaced 
the  priests  of  God  with  dire  punishments,  and  would  hear  with 
greater  patience  and  forbearance  that  a  rival  prince  had  risen 
against  him,  than  that  a  priest  of  God  was  established  at  Rome." 

*  "  Testimonio  succ  prcDdicationis  illustres  de  ejus  ordinatione  mise- 
runt."  The  version  of  Bishop  Hopkins  is  not  accurate.  The  letters 
were  to  certify  his  ordination,  and  they  were  full  of  his  praise.  Prcadi- 
catio  does  not  here  mean  'preaching. 


ACKNOWI.KnCiMKNT  OF    HISHOP   llOl'KlNH.  113 

'I'his  illustrious  lesliinony  lo  the  pre-eminence  of  liic  Komau 
Church,  as  tlie  ciiair  of  I'etcr,  forces  from  you  the  admission  : 
*'  'riial  the  Cluirch  of  Home  was  the  seat  of  Peter,  Cyprian 
doubtless  believed  ;  and,  therefore,  lie  attaclies  the  same  im- 
portance to  it  that  he  atlaclies  to  Peter  in  relation  to  the  other 
Apostles."  You  add,  "  all  this  amounted  to  no  more  than 
what  belongs  to  the  foreman  of  a  jury,  the  senior  judge  upon 
the  bench,  the  precedency  among  peers,  or  any  other  case  in 
which  a  number  being  united  in  the  same  work  with  the  same 
powers,  one  for  the  sake  of  order  goes  before  the  rest."  Pray, 
sir,  does  not  the  illustrious  martyr  say,  that  to  communicate 
with  the  Roman  Bishop  is  to  communicate  with  the  Catholic 
Ciiurch  ;  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  altar  to  be  erected,  or 
priesthood,  or  chair  lo  subsist,  separated  from  that  chair  "  found- 
ed by  the  voice  of  tiie  Lord  upon  Peter?"  Was  not  the  pre- 
eminence and  power  of  that  Uishop  so  notorious,  that  a  perse- 
cuting emperor  regretted  more  liis  election  than  tiie  rise  of  a 
rival,  and  a  foe  ? 

Anlonian  had  requested  to  be  informed  what  heresy  Nova- 
lian  had  inlrotluccd.  Cyprian  replied,  it  was  a  mailer  of  no 
consequence,  as  long  as  he  was  separated  from  tlie  Church  by 
his  opposition  to  its  lawful  Bishop:  "As  to  what  regards  the 
person  of  Novatian,  concerning  whom  you  have  requested  that 
I  should  inform  you  what  heresy  he  has  introduced,  know,  in 
the  first  place,  that  we  should  not  be  curious  to  know  wliat  he 
teaclies,  since  he  teaches  without.  Jflwcver  he  is,  and  whatever 
qualifications  he  possesses,  he  is  not  a  Christian  who  is  not  i)i 
the  Church  of  ChristJ*^  1  believe,  sir,  you  will  find  no  advocate 
of  the  l*apal  authority  insist  on  the  necessity  of  communion  with 
the  Apostolic  See,  in  terms  stronger  than  these.  From  this  epis- 
tle, nevertheless,  you  have  brought  forward  an  objection  which 
will  be  best  refuted  by  preseniiiig  it  in  connexion  witii  the  con- 
text of  the  place  whence  it  is  taken.  Immediately  after  the 
word.-*  just  quoted,  Cyprian  continues:  "Though  he  boast  of 
his  philosophy,  or  proclaim  his  eUxiucnce  in  haughty  words, 
he  who  has  maintained  neither  fraternal  charity  nor  ecclesia.^- 


114  ST  CYPRIAN. 

tical  unity,  lias  lost  what  he  had  been  before.  Unless  he  ap- 
pears to  you  to  be  a  bishop,  who  after  a  bishop  had  been  made 
in  the  Church  by  sixteen  bishops,  endeavours  through  ambition 
to  be  made  by  deserters,  an  adulterer  and  a  stranger,  and  whilst 
there  is  one  Church  divided  by  Christ  into  many  members 
throughout  the  whole  world,  and  one  Episcopacy  spread  abroad 
through  the  concordant  multitude  of  bishops,  he,  contrary  to 
the  tradition  of  God,  contrary  to  the  unity  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  connected  and  joined  together  everywhere,  endeavours 
to  make  a  human  church,  and  sends  his  new  apostles  through 
many  cities,  to  lay  some  foundations  of  his  new  institution  ; 
and  whilst  long  since,  throughout  all  the  provinces,  and  in  every 
city,  bishops  have  been  ordained, — advanced  in  age,  sound 
in  faith,  tried  in  times  of  oppression,  proscribed  in  persecution,— 
he  dares  create  pseudo-bishops  in  their  stead."  You  may  not 
have  had  the  whole  text  under  your  eye  when  you  argued  that 
there  is  no  superior  authority  in  the  Bishop  of  Rome  above  his 
colleagues,  because  the  Episcopate  is  one :  for  surely  whoever 
reads  the  text  must  manifestly  see  that  the  saint  is  not  labour- 
ing to  establish  the  equality  of  all  bishops,  but  their  union  for 
one  great  purpose — the  government  of  the  Church  ;  whence  he 
concludes  that  the  refractory  intruder,  Novatian,  by  his  oppo- 
sition to  Cornelius,  was  cut  off  from  the  communion  of  all 
bishops,  and  of  the  Church.  He  does  not,  in  this  passage,  un- 
dertake to  explain  their  relative  powers,  but  he  has  already 
stated  the  high  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

There  is  one  other  passage  in  this  letter  which,  though  not 
objected  by  you,  I  shall  explain,  as  it  may  serve  to  illustrate 
other  places.  "In  the  time  of  our  predecessors,"  says  he, 
*<  some  of  the  bishops  here,  in  our  province,  thought  that  peace 
should  not  be  given  to  adulterers,  and  totally  shut  the  ave- 
nue of  penance  against  adultery ;  but  they  did  not,  however, 
withdraw  from  the  college  of  their  fellow-bishops,  or  break  the 
unity  of  the  Catholic  Church  by  obstinate  severity  or  censure, 
so  as  that  because  peace  was  given  to  adulterers  by  some, 
whosoever  did  not  give  it  should  be  separated  from  the  Church. 


r.VlTY   OF  THE  KriSCOTATE.  115 

Wliilsl  the  bond  of  concord  remains,  and  llie  indivisible  mystery* 
of  tlie  Calliolic  CImrch  conlinues,  eacli  bishop  disposes  and 
directs  his  conduct,  being  to  render  to  the  Lord  an  account  of 
his  determination."  The  saint  speaks  of  a  mailer  of  discipline, 
— on  wliich  no  general  law  had  been  passed,  and  with  regard  to 
which  each  bishop  consequently  had  a  discretionary  power. 
In  matters  that  interfere  not  with  tlie  integrity  of  faith,  and  that 
are  not  determined  by  any  general  law, — the  bond  of  concord 
being  thus  maintained,  the  mysterious  unity  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  which  is  in  Ciirist,  being  inviolate — each  bishop  gov- 
erns and  legislates  for  the  portion  of  tlie  flock  commiited  to  his 
charge.  This  nowise  excludes  the  vigilance  and  control  of 
the  Ciiief  Bishop,  for  subordination  to  him  appertains  to  that 
bond  of  concord  which  must  remain  firm  and  unbroken  ;  yet 
his  power  is  rarely  interposed,  except  to  maintain  faith  in  its 
integrity,  or  to  urge  the  observance  of  the  general  laws  of  the 
Church. 

Further  on  you  cite  a  very  strong  passage  from  the  letter  of 
St  Cyprian  to  Cornelius,  regarding  Fortunatus  and  Felicissi- 
mus.  At  the  risk  of  being  tedious,  1  shall  venture  to  give  the 
substance  of  the  letter,  with  some  further  extracts  from  it.  It 
was  written  after  the  saint  had  received  a  letter  from  Cornelius, 
full  of  brotherly  love,  zeal  for  ecclesiastical  discipline,  and  sacer- 
dotal judgment.!  In  it  Cornelius  had  informed  him  that  Feli- 
cissimus,  a  schismatical  priest,  who  had  been  degraded  for  mis- 
conduct, by  Cyprian  and  the  African  prelates,  having  come  to 
Rome,  was  driven  from  the  Church  by  the  orders  of  Cornelius. 
In  another  letter,  whicli  accompanied  the  former,  Cornelius 
communicated  to  him  the  apprehensions  he  entertained  in  re- 
gard to  the  probable  violence  of  the  schisnjatic  and  his  abettors. 
Cyprian  remonstrates  with  him  i»n  these  fears,  as  unworthy  the 
high  ofTice  which  he  held.     '*  If,  beloved  brother,  the  audacity 


"  I'crsovcranto  Catholic®  Ecclesia'  individuoSacrnmonto."  It  iniffht 
he  rondorod  with  more  proprirly,  tlioufjli  not  so  literally,  **  the  sacred 
and  indiviHibli-  unity  of  tin-  Catholic  Church."     P.  IIG,  Ep.  ad  Anton. 

f     "  Sacerdotalis  censurtc."     St  Cyprian  ad  Cornt-l.  p.  G. 


116  ST  CYPRIAN. 

of  the  wicked  must  be  feared,  and  if  they  accomplish  by  rash 
and  desperate  means  what  they  cannot  do  justly  and  righteous- 
ly, the  vigour  of  the  Episcopacy  is  lost,  and  the  sublime  and 
divine  power  of  governing  the  Church  is  no  more,  nor  can  we 
any  longer  continue,  or  be  Christians,  if  we  have  come  to  such 
a  state  as  that  we  must  fear  the  threats  and  snares  of  abandoned 

men The   immovable  strength  of  faith  ought  to  abide  with 

us,  beloved  brother,  and  permanent  and  unshaken  virtue  ought 
to  oppose  all  attacks,  and  break  the  violence  of  the  roaring 
surges,  as  with  the  strength  and  mass  of  a  rock  lying  in  their 
way."  He  proceeds  to  observe,  that  we  must  not  regard  the 
source  of  the  danger;  and  he  expatiates  on  the  crime  of  calum- 
niating the  priests  of  God,  adducing  to  this  end  the  example 
of  the  punishment  awarded  in  the  Mosaic  law  against  whosoever 
should  contemn  the  sentence  of  the  high  priest.  *'  How  can 
they  escape  the  judgment  of  an  avenging  Lord,  who  do  such 
things  not  only  to  their  brethren,  but  to  the  priests,  to  whom 
such  great  honour  is  granted  through  the  divine  condescension, 
that  whoever  would  not  obey  the  priest  of  God,  the  judge  for 
the  time  being,  should  be  immediately  put  to  death.  In  Deu- 
teronomy, the  Lord  God  says  :  '  he  that  will  be  proud,  and  re- 
fuse to  obey  the  commandment  of  the  priest,  or  judge,  whoso- 
ever shall  be  in  those  days,  that  man  shall  die  ;  and  all  the 
people  hearing  it  shall  fear,  and  they  shall  not  afterwards  act 
impiously.'"  Having  quoted  some  other  passages  of  Scripture, 
he  draws  this  conclusion  :  "  Since  these  weighty  and  numerous 
examples,  with  many  others,  exist,  whereby  the  priestly  au- 
thority and  power,  through  divine  concession,  is  established, 
what  think  you  of  those,  who,  being  the  enemies  of  the  priests, 
and  rebels  against  the  Catholic  Church,  are  not  awed,  either 
by  the  threat  of  the  Lord  who  forewarns,  or  by  the  aveng- 
ing judgment  that  awaits  them  ?  For  from  no  other  source 
have  heresies  arisen,  or  schisms  sprung  up,  than  from  not  obey- 
ing the  priest  of  God,  and  not  reflecting  that  there  is  one  priest, 
for  the  time,  in  the  Church,  and  one  judge,  for  the  time  in  the 
place  of  Clirist,  to  whom,  if  all  the  brotherhood  yielded  obe- 


OBEDIENCE  TO  THE  FONTTFF.  117 

dience  according  to  the  divine  instructions,  no  one  would  at- 
tempt any  thing  against  the  college  of  priests  :  no  one,  alter  the 
divine  judgment,  after  the  suffrage  of  the  people,  after  the  con- 
sent of  his  fellow  bisliops,  would  make  him!?elf  judfire,  not  of  the 
bisho]),  but  of  God  ;  no  one  would  rend  the  Church  of  Christ 
by  the  breach  of  unity  ;  no  one,  through  vanity  and  pride, 
would  form  a  new  heresy  apart  and  without."*  He  proceeds 
to  show  that  the  appointment  of  the  Priest  of  God  is  made  in 
the  Church,  under  the  special  direction  of  divine  providence, 
whilst  out  of  the  Church  it  is  otherwise;  and  he  applies  this 
observation  specially  and  distinctly  to  the  Bishop  of  Home, 
Cornelius,  whose  virtues  he  sets  forth,  dwelling  especially 
on  the  rage  of  the  persecutors  against  him  : — "  I  speak  un- 
der provocation — I  speak  reluctantly — I  am  constrained  to 
say  it;  when  a  bishop  is  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  deceas- 
ed ;  when  he  is  chosen  in  peace  with  the  suffrage  of  the  whole 
people  ;  when  he  is  protected  in  persecution  by  the  aid  of  God ; 
being  united  faithfully  with  all  his  colleagues;  already,  during 
years  of  his  Episcopacy,  pleasing  to  his  people  ;  promoting 
discipline  in  time  of  tranquillity  ;  proscribed  in  stormy  times  ; 
so  often  called  for,  the  name  of  his  Episcopacy  being  specified 
and  added,  that  he  might  be  delivered  over  to  the  lion  ;  honour- 
ed witli  the  testimony  of  divine  condescension  in  the  circus 
and  in  the  ampilheatre  : — at  the  very  time  at  which  I  wrote  to 
you,  dcmaniled  anew  in  the  circus  by  tlie  shouts  of  tlic  multi- 
tude :  '  To  the  Lion,^  on  account  of  the  sacrifices  which  the 
people  were  ordered  by  an  edict  to  celebrate  : — when  such  a 
man,  beloved  brother,  is  assailed  by  some  desperate  and  aban- 
doned men,  who  are  out  of  the  Church,  it  is  manifest  by  whom 
he  is  attacked  ;  not  truly  by  Christ,  who  either  establishes  or 
protects  the  priests,  but  by  liim  who  being  the  adversary  of 


•  Ncqiic  cnim  aliunde  hrrrosca  ohortfP  sunt,  ant  nata  sunt  Bcliismata 
quam  indc  quod  sacordoti  Dei  non  obtrmjx'ratur :  noc  unus  in  Kcclrsia 
ad  tcinj)U.s  Sacordos  ct  ad  teinpus  judex  vice  Christi  cogitatur :  rui  pi 
secundum  magistcriadivina  obtcmperarct  fraternitas  universa,  nemo  ad- 
versum  Sacrcdotum  collegium  quidquam  moveret."     P.  8. 


118  ST  CYPRIAN. 

Christ,  and  enemy  of  his  Church,  persecutes  with  his  malice 
Him  who  is  set  over  the  Church  ;*  that  the  pilot  being  removed, 
he  may  more  fiercely  and  violently  proceed  to  effect  the  ship- 
wreck of  the  Church."  If  these  last  words  do  not  convince  an 
impartial  mind  that  Cyprian  regarded  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as 
the  ruler  of  the  Universal  Church,  the  one  priest  and  judge  who 
for  the  time  is  in  the  place  of  Christ,  and  whom  all  the  brethen 
should  obey,  conformable  to  the  divine  mandate,  I  am  wholly  un- 
acquainted with  the  power  of  words.    Let  us,  however,  proceed. 

Cyprian  remarks,  that  we  should  not  be  surprised  at  the  de- 
fection and  revolt  of  some  against  the  priests  and  Church  of 
God,  since  the  Lord  and  his  Apostles  had  foretold  that  such 
things  would  come  to  pass  ;  and  he  himself,  notwithstanding 
the  splendour  of  his  miracles,  had  been  forsaken  by  some  weak 
disciples.  "  And  yet,"  says  he,  "  he  did  not  rebuke  them  as 
they  went  away,  or  grievously  threaten  them  ;  but  rather,  turn- 
ing towards  his  Apostles,  he  said  :  '  Will  you  also  go  away  V 
Peter,  however,  on  whom  the  Church  was  built  by  the  same 
Lord,  speaking,  one  for  all,  and  answering  in  the  name  of  the 
Church,  says  :  '  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the 
word  of  eternal  life  ;  and  we  believe  and  have  known  that  thou 
art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ;'  signifying  thereby,  and 
showing,  that  those  who  depart  from  Christ,  perish  by  their 
own  fault ;  but  that  the  Church  which  believes  in  Christ,  and 
retains  what  it  has  once  known,  never  by  any  means  departs 
from  Christ;  and  that  they  are  the  Church  who  continue  in 
the  house  of  God." 

Cornelius  having  complained  of  not  having  received  imme- 
diate and  full  information,  in  regard  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
schismatics,  Cyprian  answers  :  "  I  did  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  report  to  you  speedily  and  pressingly  the  artifices  of  heretics; 
for  the  contrivances  of  heretical  and  schismalical  audacity 
ought  not  to  interest  the  majesty  and  dignity  of  the  Church." 

*  "  St  Cyprian  Ep.  Corn.  p.  9.  Edit.  Basil.  "  Ob  hoc  Ecclesiae  praepo- 
situm  sua  infestatione  persequitur,  ut  gubernatore  sublato,  atrocius  atque 
violentius  circa  ecclesice  naufragia  grassetur." 


EFFORTS  OF  SCHISMATICS.  119 

He  adds,  that  he  liad  lately  sent  him  a  list  of  all  llie  orthodox 
bishops  of  Africa,  lie  goes  on  lo  relate  the  proceedings  of  the 
schismatics  in  regard  to  the  making  of  Fortunaliis  bishop,  and 
then  going  to  Home  with  a  ♦  cargo'  of  falsehoods  ;  and  dwells  at 
length  on  their  facility  in  admitting  to  communion,  without 
penance,  those  who  had  fallen  in  i)ersecution.* — "  In  addition 
to  these  things,  liaving  obtained  for  themselves  a  false  bishop, 
ordained  by  heretics,  they  venture  lo  set  sail,  and  carry  letters 
from  schismatical  and  profane  men  to  the  chair  of  Peter,  and  to 
the  principal!  Church,  whence  sacerdotal  unity  has  arisen  :  nor 
do  they  reflect  that  they  are  Romans,  whose  faith  is  extolled 
by  the  Apostle,  lo  whom  perfidy  can  have  no  access."  From 
this  it  is  manifest  that  the  schismatics  ihemselves  looked  up  to 
Kome  as  the  great  and  ruling  Church,  and  sought  by  every  art 
to  enlist  its  authority  in  their  favour:  whilst  Cyprian  cherished 
a  well  grounded  confidence  that  all  their  efforts  would  prove 
vain  ;  and  regarded  their  insidious  attempt  on  the  faith  of  the 
chair  of  Peter  as  the  height  of  audacity,  'i'he  words  which 
immediately  follow,  express  the  unwillingness  of  St  Cyprian 
and  the  African  bishops,  that  priests  condemned  by  their  au- 
thority, should  have  recourse  to  Rome,  which  could  not  be  so 
fully  informed  of  their  offences  as  those  who  were  on  the  spot. 
'•  What  cause  had  they  to  come  (tc  Borne)  and  announce  the 
false  bishop  who  was  created  against  the  other  bit^hops  I  For 
they  are  either  pleased  with  what  they  did,  and  persevere  in 
their  wickedness;  or,  if  they  are  sorry,  and  abandon  it,  they 
know  whither  they  can  return.  For  since  it  was  determined 
by  us  all,  and  is  equally  just  and  proper,  that  the  cause  of  every 
one  should  be  tried  wher(;  the  crime  was  committed  ;  and  since 
to  each  of  the  pastors  a  portion  of  the  Hock  is  given,  which  each 
one  may  rule  and  govern,  being  to  render  an  account  of  his 
conduct   to  the  Lord  :   it    is    certainly   meet,    that    those  over 

"  The  translntion  of  Hishoj)  Hopkins  is  soiiu'what  iimccurate  in  tlu- 
coinmencfiiu-nt. 

t  "  Catlu'dra  principalis  ;"  it  prnprrly  rinMns  tlic  princely  or  ruling 
Church,  and  corrt-spunds  admirably  lolhe  "  potiorem  principaiitatcui"  of 
IrcniLUs. 


120  ST  CYPRIAN. 

whom  we  preside  should  not  run  about,  and  by  their  crafty  and 
fallacious  temerity  disturb  the  perfect  concord  of  bishops  ;  but 
that  they  should  plead  their  cause,  where  they  can  have  both  the 
accusers  and  witnesses  of  their  crime,  unless  a  few  desperate 
and  abandoned  men  undervalue  the  authority  of  the  bishops  of 
Africa,  who  have  already  passed  judgment  on  them,  and  have 
recently,  by  the  weight  of  their  sentence,  condemned  their  con- 
science, bound  with  many  chains  of  sins.  Already  has  their 
cause  been  tried ; — already  has  the  sentence  been  passed  :  nor 
is  it  suitable  for  the  judgment  of  priests  to  be  reproved  with  the 
levity  of  a  fickle  and  inconstant  mind."* 

To  one  eager  to  find  a  pretext  for  calling  in  question  the  Pri- 
macy, the  foregoing  passage  may,  perhaps,  appear  sufiicient ; 
but  to  the  lover  of  truth,  to  the  man  who  considers  it  in  con- 
nexion with  the  whole  letter,  it  does  not  offer  any  ground  for 
doubt.  Felicissimus  had  gone  to  Rome  with  the  letter  of  the 
pseudo-bishop  Fortunatus,  and  had  attempted  to  intrude  into  the 
Church,  as  if  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  ecclesiastical  commu- 
nion. Foiled  in  this  effort,  he  made  such  representations  as  might 
induce  Cornelius  to  doubt  of  the  justice  of  the  sentence  pro- 
nounced against  him  by  the  African  bishops.  Cornelius  wrote 
to  Cyprian,  primate  of  Carthage,  to  know  the  facts.  Cyprian 
states  them  at  length,  and  does  not  question  the  right  of  Corne- 
lius to  inquire  into  the  case,  or  even  to  revoke  the  sentence  ;  but 
he  strongly  urges  the  inexpediency  of  receiving  such  appeals 
from  refractory  priests,  the  cognizance  of  whose  cause  could 
best  take  place  where  their  delinquency  had  occurred.  This 
was  also  the  view  of  his  colleagues,  and  it  continued  to  be  re- 
spectfully urged  on  the  attention  of  the  successors  of  Cornelius, 
down  to  the  days  of  Pope  Zosimus.  The  abstract  right  of  re- 
ceiving such  appeals  was  not  called  in  question  ;  the  right  of 
aggrieved  bishops  to  appeal  to  the  chief  Bishop,  was  exercised 
and  admitted  :  but  to  extend  this  privilege  to  all  priests  seemed, 
to  the  African  prelates,  likely  to  open  a  door  to  clerical  im- 
punity, and  to  lead  to  the  contempt  of  the  Episcopal  authority. 

*     S.  Cypr.  ad  Corn. 


POWER  TO  DEPOSE   UISHOPS.  121 

When  ('yprian  says,  thai  lo  each  Bishoj)  is  coinmiiied  a  por- 
tion of  ihe  flock  lo  rule  and  govern,  wilh  responsibility  lo  God, 
he  does  not  assert  the  independence  of  each  bishop  from  everv 
other  bishop  in  that  government;  otherwise  there  could  not 
exist  the  harmony  and  unity  of  the  Episcopal  College,  on  which 
he  loves  to  dwell :  but  he  alleges  the  responsibility  of  each 
bishop  to  God,  to  show  that  in  the  exercise  of  his  authority 
over  his  clergy  and  flock,  he  was  not  likely  to  act  unjustly. 

In  reply  lo  a  complaint  of  Cornelius,  that  some  letters  from 
the  province  of  Hadrumelum  had  been  directed  to  the  priests 
and  deacons  of  Home,  rather  than  to  the  Ponlifl'  himself,  he 
slates  the  prudential  motives  which  had  induced  this  temporary 
measure,  but  assures  him  that  ♦'  he  had  exhorted  all  who  sailed 
from  Africa  to  Rome,  to  acknowledge  and  hold  fast  the  root 
and  parent  of  the  Catholic  Church."  This  surely  'looks  very 
like  our  doctrine.' 

In  a  letter  of  St  Cyprian  to  Stephen,  the  successor  of  Cor- 
nelius, he  informs  him  of  intellifrence  which  had  reached  him 
concerning  Marcian,  bishop  of  Aries,  who,  adopting  ihe  severity 
of  Novaiian,  refused  reconciliation  and  communion  to  those 
who  had  fallen  in  persecution,  however  penitent  they  after- 
wards appeared.  Far  from  regarding  this  as  a  matter  in  which 
each  bishop  might  rest  on  his  own  authority,  and  decline  all 
responsibility,  Cyjirian  earnestly  urges  Stephen  to  cut  ofl' Mar- 
cian,  without  delay,  from  the  communion  of  the  Church.  Tiie 
bishop  of  Lyons,  and  other  bishops  of  the  province,  had  ad- 
dressed Stephen,  informing  him  of  the  facts  of  the  case ;  and 
Cyprian  writes  to  stimulate  his  zeal  to  adopt  prompt  and  deci- 
sive measures.  "  Let  letters,"  he  says,  "  be  directed  by  you  lo 
the  province  and  to  the  people  of  Aries  ;  in  virtue  of  which, 
Marcian  being  deposed,  another  may  be  substituted  in  his 
place,  and  the  flock  of  Christ,  which  is  now  despised,  having 
been  scattered  and  wounded  i)y  i'.im,  may  be  gathered  toge- 

•  "  Scinms  noH  horlatoH  von  cusc  ut  Kcclosia;  Calliolictp  rndicfin  ci 
matriccm  agnosceront  ac  tencrent."  E[)ist  44.  Cornclio,  p.  1U4  Edit. 
Wirceburgi.  Kdit.  Uusil.  ab  Eroaino,  p.  1G4.  an.  MDXXI. 

L 


122  ST  CYPRIAN. 

iher."*  This  exercise  of  authority,  whicli  the  bishops  of  the 
province  did  not  attempt,  was  implored  by  Cyprian,  who  /cer- 
tainly could  not  have  solicited  it,  had  he  thought  each  bishop 
to  be  irresponsible,  or  the  Roman  Bishop  to  be  no  more  than 
the  '  foreman  of  a  jury  !'  He  concludes  by  asking  the  earliest 
information  of  the  action  of  Stephen,  and  its  results.  "  Inti- 
mate to  us  plainly,  who  shall  have  been  substituted  at  Aries  in 
place  of  Marcian,  that  we  may  know  to  whom  we  should  di- 
rect our  brethren,  and  to  whom  we  should  write."  He  men- 
tions elsewhere  the  fact  of  Basilides,  a  deposed  bishop,  who 
"going  to  Rome,  deceived  our  colleague  Stephen  far  distant 
and  ignorant  of  the  fact  and  truth,  ambitioning  to  be  unjustly 
replaced  in  the  bishopric  from  which  he  had  been  justly  de- 
posed." Instead  of  reprobating  this  act  as  an  usurpation  of 
authority  on  the  part  of  Stephen,  h.e  only  expresses  his  indig- 
nation at  the  decej)lioii  practised  on  him.  "  For  he  who  was 
inadvertently  deceived,  is  not  so  much  to  be  blamed,  as  he  is 
to  be  execrated,  who  fraudulently  deceived  him."t 

As  you  quote  from  the  admirable  work  on  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  in  which  Cyprian  affirms  the  unity  of  the  Episcopate, 
and  the  distribution  of  its  powers  amongst  many  ;  I  shall  cite 
some  passages  from  the  same  work,  which  will  show  that  the 
saint  merely  maintained  tliereby  the  unity  of  Church  govern- 
ment, by  the  concurrence  of  all  bishops,  each  in  his  place,  to 
the  one  great  object,  and  the  exercise  of  their  powers  in  strict 
and  close  communion  with  the  Apostolic  chair  of  Peter — "  The 
Lord  says  to  Peter :  '  I  say  to  thee  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  on 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church  ;  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it.  To  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth,  shall 
be  bound  also  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon 
earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.'  And  after  his  resurrection  he 
says  to  him  :  '  Feed  my  sheep  ;'  and  although  after  his  resurrec- 
tion he  gives  to  all  the  Apostles  equal  power,  and   says  :   '  As 

*     S.  Cyprian.    Stephano,  1.  3,  13,  Ep.  p.  90.  Edit.  Basil, 
t     L.  1.  Epist.  4.  Edit.  Basil,  p.  10.  Felici  Presb. 


PETER  THE  Ol'ARDIAN  OF   I'NITY.  123 

llie  Father  haili  sent  me,  I  also  send  you.  Receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghost:  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven 
them  :  whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained  :'  yet  to 
manifest  unity,  he  ordained,  hy  his  authority,  the  origin  of  the 
same  unity,  beginning  from  one.  Even  the  oilier  Apostles 
were  certainly  the  same  as  Peter,  admitted  to  the  equal  partici- 
pation of  honour  and  power;  but  tlie  commencement  arises 
from  unity,  that  the  Church  may  be  shown  to  be  one."*  It  is 
clear  that  the  saint,  in  asserting  the  ecpialily  of  the  Apostolic 
mission  and  power,  in  regard  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and 
other  acts  of  their  ministry,  always  imderstands  that  Peter  was 
constituted  the  head  of  the  rest,  and  vested  witli  a  power  by 
which  unity  couM  be  maintained. 

'J'he  passage  which  you  quote  from  the  letter  to  "  The  Fall- 
en," harmonizes  perfectly  with  the  others,  in  which  the  Pri- 
macy of  Peter  is  declared.  Some  of  the  unhappy  persons  who 
in  the  persecution  had  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  thus  fallen  from 
the  faitli,  addressed  Cyprian  a  letter  in  the  name  of  the  Churcli, 
as  if  they  constituted  the  Church.  The  holy  Bishop  commen- 
ces his  reply  by  showing  them,  from  the  words  of  our  Lord  to 
Peter,  that  the  pastor,  with  his  clergy  and  flock,  are  the 
Church  ;  and  that  tliis  name  cannot  be  usurped  by  a  band  of 
deserters  from  its  faith. — ♦*  Our  Lord,  whose  precepts  and  ad- 
monitions,! we  ought  to  observe  ;  establisiiing  the  honour  of 
the  bishop,  and  the  system  of  his  Cliurch,  speaks  in  tiie  (Jos- 
pel,  and  says  to  l*eter :  'I  say  to  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter; 
and  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church  ;  and  the  gales  of  iiell 
shall  not  overcome  it;  and  to  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shall  bind  upon  earth, 
shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shall  loose 
upon  earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.'  Thence  by  the 
flux  of  limes   and  successions,  tl»e  ordination   of    bishops   and 


•     Edit.  Wircchur^i,  p.  !M'J.    In  thin  last  edition  the  text  roads  :   *'  l*r:- 
matua  I'elro  datur  ut  una  CliriHli  cccleHia,  ot  cathedra  una  inonstrrtiir. 
I  have  not  followed  this  reading,  as  it  is  wanting  in  some  nianuHcripta 

t    *'  Pra'ccptactmonita;"  Bishop  Hopkins  reads  "  projceptameluere. 


124  ST  CYPRIAN. 

the  system  of  the  Church  runs  along  ;  so  that  the  Church  is 
established  upon  the  bishops,  and  every  act  of  the  Church  is 
governed  by  the  same  presidents.  Since,  therefore,  this  is  es- 
tablished by  the  divine  law,  I  am  surprised  that  some,  with 
audacious  temerity,  have  ventured  to  write  to  me  in  the  name 
of  the  Church,  while  the  Church  consists  of  the  bishop,  clergy, 
and  all  the  hearers."* 

When,  then,  he  says  that  the  Episcopate  is  one,  far  from  de- 
nying the  superior  pov^er  of  Peter  and  his  successors,  he  ne 
cessarily  presupposes  it ;  for  the  multitude  of  bishops  could 
not  be  preserved  in  this  essential  unity,  except  by  some  con- 
trolling power  ;  and  he  himself  has  taught  us  that  it  was  lodg- 
ed in  Peter,  since  from  him  unity  began.  The  harmony  of 
the  Episcopal  body,  and  not  their  equality  in  every  respect,  is 
only  asserted  by  him  :  '*  Does  he  who  opposes  and  resists  the 
Church,  flatter  himself  that  he  is  in  the  Church  ?t  whilst  the 
blessed  Paul  the  Apostle  teaches  this,  and  shows  the  mystery 
of  unity,  saying,  one  body  and  one  spirit ;  one  hope  of  your 
calling  ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  ;  one  God.  Which 
unity  ought  to  be  firmly  held  and  maintained,  especially  by  us 
bishops  who  preside  in  the  Church,  that  we  may  prove  that 
the  Episcopate  itself  is  one  and  indivisible.  Let  no  one 
deceive  the  brotherhood  by  falsehood  :  let  no  one  corrupt  the 
truth  of  faith  by  perfidious  prevarication.  The  Episcopate  is 
one,  of  which  a  part  is  held  by  each  one  to  the  whole :  the 
Church  is  one,  which  is  extended  more  widely  by  the  increase 
of  its  fecundity. "J  Had  he  meant  the  perfect  equality  of  all 
bishops,  and  their  absolute  independence  one  of  the  other, 
there  could  not  be  the  one  Episcopate — the  one  faith — the  one 
Church.     Not  only  would  the  government  of  each  church  vary 

*     Epist.  27,  lapsis,  p.  66.  Edit.  Wirceburgi. 

t  I  cite  from  the  edition  of  Erasmus,  published  at  Basle  in  1521.  A 
later  edition,  which  lies  before  me,  presents  a  splendid  testimony  of  the 
Primacy  :  "  Qui  Ecclesise  renititur  et  resistit,  qui  calhedram  Petri  super 
quem  fundata  est  Ecclesia  deserit  in  Ecclesia  se  esse  confidit?"  Wirce- 
burgi, an.  1782.  p.  349.  As  the  true  reading  is  contested,  I  have  taken 
the  less  favourable. 

J  S.  Cyp.  1.  de  unit.  t:cc1. 


WRITINGS  ABOUT  nAI»TlSM.  125 

according  to  the  caprice  or  jiulL^inont  of  its  prolate,  but  the  doc- 
trine itself  would  be  likewise  subject  to  the  same  variety  and 
the  same  clianges.  Instead  of  that  unity  wliicli  Cyprian  so 
powerfully  inculcates  as  tlie  vital  principle  of  relifrjoi),  there 
would  be  endless  discord  and  contradiction.  Evidently,  then, 
the  saint  does  not  athrm  the  equality  of  all  bishops;  but  he 
justly  concludes,  from  the  foundation  of  the  Churcli  on  Peter, 
and  its  continuance  through  the  successions  of  bishops,  that 
bishops  with  their  tlocks,  and  not  some  laymen  of  themselves, 
arc  the  Church.  He  does  not  here  treat  of  the  relative  powers 
of  bishops,  the  discussion  of  which  was  foreign  to  his  imme- 
diate object. 

The  letter  to  Quintus,  directed  to  prove  the  invalidity  of 
baptism  administered  by  heretics,  with  all  the  other  writings 
in  defence  of  this  error,  might  be  justly  passed  over;  for  the 
very  reason,  that  they  are  directed  to  maintain  what  you, 
as  well  as  I,  acknowledge  to  be  erroneous ;  and  lalse  princi- 
ples, and  incorrect  expressions  may  be  expected,  when  a  fa- 
vourite, though  false,  opinion  is  to  be  sustained.  It  might  even 
be  remarked,  that  several  learneil  critics,  in  Germany  and  else- 
where,* have  called  in  question  the  autlienlicity  of  those  writ- 
ings, or  at  least  have  believed  that  they  were  adulterated  by 
the  Donatists,  inasmuch  as  they  think  them  altogether  unworthy 
of  his  pen.  They  cannot  find  in  them  the  dignity,  the  ma- 
jesty, the  eloquence,  the  humility,  and  the  sweetness,  which 
mark  his  otlier  works.  I  do  not  make  this  observation  with  a 
view  to  deprive  you  of  any  benefit  you  may  hope  to  derive 
from  them,  but  merely  from  a  sense  of  justice  to  the  illustrious 
martyr,  who,  though  he  may  have  entertained  an  erroneous 
sentiment,  in  regard  to  a  usage  on  which  the  authority  of  the 
Universal  Church  was  not  then  fully  ascertained,  always  cher- 
ished the  most  abundant  charity,  and  the  most  inviolable  at- 
tachment to  the  unity  of  the  Church,  as  St  Augustiiie  repeat- 
edly testifies.     The  passage  in  question,  however,  far  from  of- 

*     Sco  Hiritrrim'fl  work,  "  Dio  vorziJglichntcn  Dcnkwiirdigktilcii  der 
christkatliolischen  Kirchc  ;'  article  I'abHt 
h* 


126  ST  CYPRIAN. 

fering  any  difficulty,  affirms  the  Primacy.  Pope  Stephen, 
when  the  decree  of  the  African  council,  requiring  that  all  who 
came  from  any  heretical  sect  to  the  Catholic  Church  should  be 
baptized,  was  made  known  to  him,  rejected  and  condemned  it, 
and  forbade  any  innovation  on  the  ancient  and  general  practice 
of  the  Church:  Nihil  innovetur,  nisi  quod  traditum  est. 
The  author  of  this  letter  thus  opposes  this  fundamental  rea- 
son:  "Custom  must  not  be  allowed  to  prescribe,  but  reason 
must  prevail.  For  neither  did  Peter,  whom  the  Lord  chose 
to  be  tirst,^  and  on  whom  he  built  his  Church,  when  Paul  after- 
wards disputed  with  him  in  regard  to  circumcision,  inso- 
lently claim,  nor  arrogantly  assume  anything,  saying  that  he 
held  the  Primacy,  and  should  be  obeyed  by  those  who  were 
new  and  posterior  to  him.t  Nor  did  he  despise  Paul,  be- 
cause he  had  been  a  persecutor  of  the  Church,  but  he  admitted 
the  counsel  of  truth,  and  readily  agreed  to  the  just  reason  which 
Paul  alleged,  giving  us  an  example  of  concord  and  patience, 
that  we  should  not  obstinately  cherish  our  own  sentiments,  but 
rather  adopt  as  our  own  those  which  are  sometimes  usefully 
and  wisely  suggested  by  our  brethren  and  colleagues. "J  This 
observation  is  evidently  directed  to  show  that  Stephen  should 
not  rest  on  his  superior  authority,  but  rather  imitate  the  con- 
descension of  Peter,  who,  waiving  the  consideration  of  his  own 

*  ''  Quem  primum  Dominus  elegit."  Bishop  H.  translates  it  incorrect- 
ly :  "  whom  the  Lord  chose  first."  Peter  was  not  the  first  called,  since 
Andrew,  his  brother,  and  another  of  the  disciples  of  John,  were  previ- 
ously invited,  by  the  Saviour,  to  come  and  see,  and  Peter  was  invited  by 
Andrew.     John  ch.  1. 

I  "  Obtemperari  a  novellis  et  posteris  sibi  potius  oportere."  The 
translation  which  Bishop  H.  has  followed  in  this  place,  is  a  literary  curi- 
osity :  "  obtemperari  a  novellis  et  posteris  sibi  potius  oportere  :"  "  that  it 
was  fit  that  Paul  should  comply  with  him  in  his  new  and  lately  devised 
ways  !" 

t  Cypr.  ad  Quint.  Ep.  Ixxi.  p.  227.  Ed.  Wirceb.  Stephen  op- 
posed the  ancient  usage  to  the  novelty :  the  writer  replies  that  reason 
should  prevail  over  usage,  and  that  Stephen  should  not  rest  on  his  supe- 
rior authority.  The  letter  to  Pope  Stephen,  which  contains  a  reference 
to  this  letter,  is  suspected  by  Launojus  (no  friend  to  the  Holy  See)  of 
being  supposititious,  and  both  seem  to  have  come  from  the  same  source. 


INCONSISTENCY  OF  BISHOP  IJOPKINS.  127 

Primacy,  yielded  to  the  prudent  sutri;eslion  of  Paul.  'J'he  au- 
thority itself  is  not  at  all  questioned,  hut  its  mild  and  prudent 
exercise  is  commended.  A  similar  reflection  often  occurs  in 
the  writings  of  those  Fathers  of  the  Churcli  who  have  identi- 
fied the  prince  of  the  Apostles  with  Cephas,  reproved  hy  Paul. 
**Lo!"  cries  St  Gregory  the  Creat,  "  he  is  reproved  hy  an  in- 
ferior, and  he  vouchsafes  to  receive  the  reproof,  nor  cares  to 
remind  liim  that  he  has  received  the  keys  of  tiie  kingdom  of 
heaven."" 

The  appellations  of  '*  colleague,"  "  fellow  bishop"  and 
"brother,"  which  Cyprian  and  Cornelius  mutually  give  each 
other,  are  evidences  of  the  charily  which  united  them,  and  of 
the  Episcopal  character  common  to  botli :  but  the  superiority  of 
the  Hishop  of  Rome  is  manifested  whilst  it  is  acknowledged 
that  he  is  the  successor  of  Peter,  occupies  the  princely  Chair, 
and  has  power  to  depose  delinquent  bishops.  "  Venerable  bre- 
thren," is  the  title  which  to  this  day  is  used  by  the  Pope  when 
addressing  his  fellow  bishops  ;  yet  no  one  thinks  lliat  he  means 
thereby  to  place  liimself  on  perfect  equality  with  them. 

I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  you  could  have  asserted,  that 
Cyprian  *'  assigninfr  the  reason  why  Rome  takes  precedence  of 
Carthage,  makes  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  difierence 
among  the  Apostles,  or  amongst  the  bishops  w  ho  succeeded 
them  ;  but  puts  it  on  the  ground  of  local  advantage,  accordiuL^ 
to  the  principle  mentioned  before  :  '  Plainly,  therefore,  sailh  he, 
on  account  of  its  magnitude,  Rome  ought  to  precede  Carthage.' " 
Had  you  not  already  told  us  that  "  Cyprian  doubtless  believed 
that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  the  seat  of  Peter,  and,  therefore, 
he  attaches  the  same  importance  to  it  that  he  attaches  to  Peter 
in  relation  to  the  other  Apostles  ?"  As  to  the  passage  brought 
forward  by  you,  it  regards  Novatus,  who  having  factiously  and 
ambitiously  made  a  deacon  in  Africa,  went  to  Rome,  and  there 
attempted  to  intrude  Novaiian  into  the  cliairof  Peter.  *♦  Truly, 
since  Rome  should  surpass  Carthage,  in  consequence  of  its 
greatness,  he  committed  greater  and  more  heinous  crimes  there. 

"      St  Grog.,  1.  2.  in  Ezrrh.  hnm.  I-^. 


138  ST  CYPRIAN. 

He  who  here  had  made  a  deacon  against  the  Church,  there 
made  a  bishop."  The  saint,  in  aUuding  to  the  greatness*  of 
Rome,  does  not  specify  of  what  greatness  he  speaks,  and  as 
throughout  his  works  he  so  often  makes  reference  to  its  spirit- 
ual principality, — "  Cathedram  principalem,"  it  is  but  just  to 
understand  him  as  aUuding  to  it  in  tliis  passage.  Besides,  he 
is  not,  as  you  insinuate,  explaining  why  Rome  precedes  Car- 
thage in  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  but  he  merely  takes  occa- 
sion from  the  greatness  of  the  Roman  Church  to  observe,  that 
it  might  be  expected  that  the  daring  and  desperate  sectarist 
would  attempt  there  greater  crimes.  Is  the  cause  of  truth  ad- 
vanced by  adducing  such  arguments  as  have  no  clear  reference  to 
the  point  at  issue  ? 

As  you,  after  other  writers,  lay  great  stress  on  the  con- 
troversy regarding  the  validity  of  baptism  administered  by 
heretics,  I  shall  defer  the  full  examination  of  it  to  my  next  let-, 
ter,  and  conclude  for  the  present  with  the  beautiful  remarks  of 
the  saint,  in  his  letter  to  Pope  Cornelius,  on  the  words  of  Peter 
to  Christ,  related  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St  John  :  "  Peter,  on 
whom  the  Church  had  been  built  by  the  same  Lord,  one  speak- 
ing for  all,  and  answering  with  the  voice  of  the  Church  says  : 
'  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the  word  of  eternal 
life,  and  we  believe  and  have  known  that  thou  art  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God;'  thereby  signifying  and  showing  that 
those  who  depart  from  Christ,  perish  through  their  own  fault, 
but  that  the  Church  which  believes  in  Christ,  and  holds  what 
she  has  once  known,  never  by  any  means  departs  from  him, 
and  that  they  are  the  Church  who  remain  in  the  house  of 
God."t 

*    Pro  "  magnitudine  sua."     Cyp.  Corn.  xlix.  p.  112. 
t     S.  Cyp.  ad  Cornelium,  Ep.  Iv.  p.  146. 


LETTER  X. 

CONTROVERSY  CONCERNING   BAPTISM. 


Right  Reverend  Sir: 

In  the  statement  of  tlie  controversy  concerning  the  validity 
of  baptism  administered  by  heretics,  you  allege  *'  that  Stephen, 
the  Biahop  of  Rome,  next  but  one  after  Cornelius,  maintained  the 
validity  of  baptism  when  administered  by  heretics  and  schis- 
matics, and  was  warmly  opposed  on  this  account  by  Cyprian 
and  the  bishops  of  Africa,  who  held  a  provincial  council  on  the 
subject.  'I'his  is  reversing  the  order  of  facts,  and  giving  the 
reader  to  understand  that  the  sentiment  of  Stephen  was  the 
origin  of  the  controversy,  and  became  the  subject  of  examina- 
tion by  an  African  council ;  whereas  the  truth  is,  that  the  views 
of  Cyprian  and  his  colleagues  on  this  head  becoming  known 
at  Rome,  by  means  of  the  acts  of  their  council,  Stephen,  witli 
the  authority  of  his  ofiice,  forbade  them  to  depart  from  the  an- 
cient usage  of  the  Church.  Allow  me  to  state  the  case  in  the 
words  of  an  impartial  writer,  whose  memory  is  iield  in  venera- 
tion by  you,  no  less  than  by  the  Catholic  Church.  St  Vincent 
of  Lerins,  in  his  Connnonitory^  shows  the  zeal  with  which 
novelty  is  always  opposed,  especially  by  the  Apostolic  See, 
and  refers  to  this  controversy  for  the  proof.  "  Not  to  be  tedious, 
we  shall  select  one  instance,  and  this  especially  from  the  Apos- 
tolic See,  that  all  may  see  more  clearly  than  in  meridian  light, 
with  what  energy,  with  what  zi;al,  with  what  pcr^ieverance  the 
blessed  successors*  of  the  holy  Apostles  have  always  defended 
the  integrity  of  Religion  as  it  was  originally  delivered.     For- 

•     "  Hcata  succcssio."     The  srrios  Ih  put  for  those  who  form  it. 


130  CONTROVERSY  CONCERNING  BAPTISM. 

merly,  then,  Agrippinus,  bishop  of  Carthage,  a  man  whose 
memory  is  venerable,  was  the  first  to  maintain  that  baptism 
shoul(i  be  repeated,  in  opposition  to  the  divine  canon,  to  the 
rule  of  the  universal  Church,  to  the  judgment  of  all  his  fellow 
priests,  to  the  custom  and  decrees  of  his  predecessors  :  which 
presumption  was  the  cause  of  so  much  evil,  that  it  not  only 
gave  all  heretics  a  form  of  sacrilege,  but  even  gave  occasion  of 
error  to  some  Catholics.  When,  therefore,  all  cried  out  from 
all  quarters  against  the  novelty,  and  all  priests,  in  every  place, 
struggled  against  it,  each  according  to  his  zeal.  Pope  Stephen, 
of  blessed  memory,  who  at  that  time  was  prelate  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See,  in  conjunction  indeed  with  his  colleagues,  but  yet 
more  than  his  colleagues,  resisted,  thinking  it  Jit,  as  I  suppose, 
that  he  should  surpass  all  others  in  the  devotedness  of  his 
faith,  as  much  as  he  excelled  them  by  the  authority  of  his 
station.  Finally,  in  the  epistle  which  was  then  sent  to  Africa, 
he   decreed  in  these  words :  that  '  no  innovation  should  be 

ADMITTED,  BUT  WHAT  WAS  HANDED  DOWN  SHOULD  BE  RETAINED.' 

What  power  had  the  African  council  or  decree  1  None, 
through  the  mercy  of  God."*  How  different  was  the  light  in 
which  this  venerable  author  of  the  fifth  century  viewed  the 
part  which  Pope  Stephen,  in  virtue  of  his  eminent  and  Apos- 
tolic dignity,  acted  in  this  controversy,  from  that  in  which  you 
have  presented  it  to  your  readers. 

The  name  of  St  Cyprian  is  not  mentioned  by  Vincent,  pro- 
bably because  he  did  not  regard  the  fact  of  his  being  an  abettor 
of  the  erroneous  practice  as  altogether  unquestionable.  St 
Augustin  assures  us  that  there  were  several  who  maintained 
that  Cyprian  had  not  at  all  entertained  that  opinion,  but  that 
the  letters  and  documents  were  composed  by  presumptuous  and 
deceitful  men,  with  a  view  to  give  it  the  sanction  of  his  illus- 
trious name  ;t  and  though  he  did  not  choose  to  rely  upon  this 

*     Commonit.,  c.  viii. 

\  "  Quamquam  non  desint  qui  hoc  Cyprianum  prorsus  non  sensisse 
contendant,  sed  sub  ejus  nomine  a  proesumptoribus  atque  mendacibus 
fuisse  confictum."  Epist.  xciii.  ad  Vincentium  Rog.  S.  38,  p.  246.  Tom. 
II.  Edit.  Vcn. 

''  Cum   illud  concilium,  vel  ilia  scripta,  si  vere  ipsius  sunt,  et  non. 


ST  AUGU8T1N  8   SOLUTION.  131 

defenre,  yet  he  ohserveil  in  reply  to  the  Doiialists  :   •♦  ('yprian 
either  did  not  at  all  think,  as  you  represent  him  to  have  thoufjht, 
or  lie  aflerwards  corrected  this  error  i)y  the  rule  of  truth  ;  or  lie 
covered  this   blemish,  as  it  were,  of  his  fair  breast,  wiih  the 
abundance  of  his  charity,  whilst  he  defended  most  eloquently 
the  unity  of  the  Church  spread  ihroughoul  the  whole  world, 
and  held  most  steadfastly  the  bond  of  peace."*  You  have,  now, 
tVom  the  eloquent  Augustin,   the  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
dirticulty  which  you  press  on  our  attention.     '*  If  this  glorious 
branch  [of  the  mystical  viney — says  he,  elsewhere,  "  had  in 
this  respect  need  of  any  purification,  it  was  cleansed  by  the 
glorious  scythe  of  martyrdom,  not  because  he  was  slain  for  the 
name  of  Christ,  but  because  he  was  slain  in  the  bosom  of  unity 
for  the  name  of  Christ  :  for  he  himself  wrote,  and  most  confi- 
dently asserted,   that  they  who  are  out  of  unity,  though  they 
should  die  for  that  name,  may  be  slain,  but  cannot  be  crowned."! 
The  proofs  which   you  adduce,  of   the    resistance    of   the 
African   bishops  to  Stephen,  are  not  in  my  mind  satisfactory, 
though    to    avoid    every    unnecessary  discussion,   where  vital 
truth  only  should   be   sought,   1   am  willing  to   let  the   fact  of 
their  dissent    be    assumed   as   certain,  and   the  documents    by 
which    it    is    sustained    pass    as    aiithentic.     In    the   days    of 
Augustin,    both   were    matters   which   to    him,   as   well    as  to 
others,  appeared  questionable.      Eusebius,  indeed,  states  that 
Cyprian   maintained   llie   necessity  of  rebaptizing  those   who 
had  been  baptized  by  heretics,  and  that  Stephen  judged  that  no 
change  should  be  made  in  the  ancient  tradition  ;  but  he  has  not 
mentioned  any  act,  on  the  part  of  the  sainted  bishop  of  Carthage, 
subsequent  to  the  prohibition  of  tlic  PoniilT,  in  derogation  to  it.| 

Bicut  aliqui  pulaiit,  sub  ejus  nomine  conscripta  atquo  conficta."  Ep. 
cviii.  p.  3U1). 

•  "  I'orro  autemCyprianiis  aut  non  sonsit  omnino  quod  iniin  scnsissc 
recitatis ;  aut  hoc  postea  corri'xit  in  rcj^ula  vcritatis,  aut  hunc  quasi 
najvuin  Hui  candidissimi  pectoris  cooperuit  ubere  caritatis  duiii  unitatern 
Eccleaitt;  lolo  orbc  cregcentiB,  et  copiohiHsiine  defendit,  et  perst  vtrantis- 
simc  tcnuit  vinculum  pacis."   V.  2-17,  ad  Vincentium. 

t     Epist.  cviii.  ad  iMacrohium,  p.  :W.».   Edit.  Ven. 

t     Euticb.  1.  vii.  c.  3.  Hist.  Eccl. 


132  CONTROVERSY  CONCERNING  BAPTISM. 

St  Jerom,  on  the  contrary,  informs  us  that  the  African  bishops 
reformed  their  decree  in  consequence  of  the  judgment  of 
Stephen :  "  St  Cyprian  (lie  says)  endeavoured  to  shun  pits 
that  were  broken,  and  not  to  drink  of  the  water  of  oihers,  and 
on  that  account  reprobating  the  baptism  of  heretics,  forwarded 
the  African  synod,  on  this  subject,  to  Stephen,  then  Bishop  of 
the  Roman  city,  the  twenty-sixth  from  blessed  Peter :  but  his 
effort  proved  fruitless.  Finally,  those  very  bishops,  who  with 
him  had  determined  that  the  heretics  should  be  rebaptized, 
turning  back  to  the  ancient  custom,  issued  a  new  decree."* 

Waiving,  however,  all  these  motives  for  doubting  of  the  fact 
which  you  allege,  I  proceed  to  your  authorities, — the  principal 
one  of  which  is  a  letter  bearing  the  name  of  Firmilian,  bishop  of 
Cesarea,  in  Cappadocia,  whom,  however,  you  repeatedly  de- 
signate one  of  the  African  bishops.  This  document  bears 
ample  testimony  to  tlie  authority  claimed  and  exercised  by 
Stephen,  whilst  it  severely  censures  its  exercise.  "  I  am," 
says  the  writer,  "justly  indignant  at  this  so  open  and  manifest 
folly  of  Stephen,  who,  whilst  he  so  boasts  of  the  place  of  his 
bishopric,  and  contends  that  he  holds  the  succession  of  Peter, 
upon  whom  the  foundations  of  the  Church  were  placed,  never- 
theless, brings  in  many  other  rocks,  and  builds  the  new  edifices 
of  many  churches,  whilst  he  defends  their  baptism  by  his  au- 
thority."! 

Was  not  this  the  occasion  to  deny,  in  express  terms,  the 
truth  of  Stephen's  claims,  if  they  could  at  all  be  brought  in 
question?  Your  author,  however,  is  content  with  imputing  to 
him  folly,  for  an  admission  which  appeared  adverse  to  his  own 
claims,  and  subversive  of  the  constitution  of  the  Church ;  but 
he  admits  the  fact  of  his  succession  to  Peter,  and  that  on  Peter 
the  Church  was  founded.  The  next  passage  which  you  cite, 
arraigns  the  Roman  usages  in  the  observance  of  Easter  and 
other  disciplinary  matters;  but  admits  that  these  usages  do  not 
militate  against  Catholic  unity,  and  blames  Stephen  for  ven- 
turing to  disturb  this  concord  and  union,  and  to  reflect  infamy 

*     S.  Hier.  dial,  contra  Luciferian. 

t     Ep.  Firmiliani  inter  Cyprian,  p.  2G5.  Tom.  III.  Edit.  Wirceburgi. 


sri'PosKD  Aiu'si:  of  towkk.  i;i3 

on  llie  Apostles  Peter  :intl  Paul,  by  tracing  to  them  the  practice 
which  he  then  ilefendetl,  as  if  il  had  come  down  to  him  by  the 
tradition  of  Ins  See."  In  the  tliird  passa<re,  lie  opposes  to  this 
custom  that  truth  which  came  down  from  Christ  and  the 
Aposth's,  and  whicli  he  fancied  to  favour  Iiis  sentiment.  All 
this  does  not  imply  a  denial  of  the  Primary,  hut  supposes  an 
abuse  of  its  powers,  to  sustain  a  local  usage  adverse  to  the 
true  principles  of  Christianity.  In  llie  heat  of  disputation,  this 
and  much  more  might  be  said,  by  one  professing,  most  sin- 
cerely, submis^sion  to  the  legitimate  exercise  of  the  Pontifical 
authority.  In  the  defence  of  a  false  principle,  a  man,  exas- 
perated !)y  the  threat  of  an  exercise  of  authority  which  he  re- 
gards as  wanton  and  unjust,  will  say  much  that  is  inconsistent 
with  the  reverence  which  he  owes  it  and  habitually  cherishes  : 
and  the  cause  of  the  unbecoming  langmge  of  Firmilian — if  the 
letter  be  really  his — is  thus  mentioned  by  Eusebius  :  "  Stephen 
had  written  concerning  Helenus,  and  Firmilian,  and  all  the 
priests  through  Cilicia,  Cappadocia,  and  all  the  neighbouring 
provinces,  that  he  would  not  communicate  with  them  for  this 
very  reason,  that  they  rebaptizcd  heretics."! 

The  passages  of  the  letter  to  Pompey,  attributed  to  Cyprian, 
contain  bitter  complaints  of  the  sanction  apparently  given  to 
heresy  by  the  decree  of  Stephen.  The  tradition  which  was 
alleged  by  him  is  impugned,  and  he  is  accused  of  placing  a  hu- 
man tradition  above  the  truth  of  God.  His  Primacy,  however, 
is  not  assailed,  though  he  is  censured  as  abusing  the  authority 
with  which  he  is  invested.  You  know  too  well  the  human 
heart,  and  the  blind  attachment  of  man  to  the  error  By  which  he 
is  seduced,  not  to  find  il  easy  to  reconcile  these  murmurs  and 
strictures  with  the  abstract  admission  of  a  superior  authority. 

In  the  political  occurrences  of  the  day,  we  have  a  strikingevi- 
dencc  of  the  admission  of  superior  power,  accompanied  by  cen- 
sures on  its  exercise,  and  in  some  cases  by  open  resistance  to 

•     "  Adhuc  ctinm  innimauM  I'rtrtitn  ct  rauliim  bcatns  aposiolos,  quasi 
hoc  ipsi  trndiflcrint  "   Kiriiiilian,  E|».  T.'i,  int«'r  «HM'ra  Cypriani,  p.  25H. 
t      Dionys    Alrx.  ad  XyHluin  V.  ri'lat.  nb  Kusebio  Iliul.  Eccl    1.  vii.  5. 
M 


134  CONTROVERSY  COXCERNING  BAPTISM. 

it,  as  an  abuse  of  official  prerogative.  Those  who  were  most 
vehement  in  denouncing  the  exercise  of  the  veto  by  our  late 
president,  admitted  the  authority  of  his  office,  and  even  the 
constitutional  right  with  which  he  was  invested:  and  when  a 
southern  state  placed  herself  in  an  attitude  of  resistance  to  the 
execution  of  some  measures  of  the  general  government,  she  did 
not,  in  the  assertion  of  her  own  sovereignty,  deny  that  certain 
powers  were  lodged  in  the  general  government;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, she  professed  a  willingness  to  respect  their  constitutional 
exercise.  If  the  fact  of  resistance  to  authority  imj)lied  its  de- 
nial, or  non-existence,  I  know  not  what  power,  civil  or  Eccle- 
siastical, could  be  maintained. 

To  the  list  of  interrogatories  which  follow  your  proofs,  I 
have  only  to  reply,  that  you  will  find  them  abundantly  answer- 
ed in  this  and  the  preceding  letter,  in  which  numerous  and 
strong  passages  of  the  saint  have  been  cited,  testifying  the  Pri- 
macy of  Peter,  and  of  the  princely  Chair  which  he  founded,  and 
recognising  the  right  of  the  Roman  Bishop  to  depose  bishops 
unworthy  of  their  office.  Cyprian  is  on  the  calendar  of  saints, 
because,  from  the  time  of  his  conversion  to  Christianity  he  ex- 
ercised the  sublime  virtues,  and  in  death  he  proved  the  ardour 
and  constancy  of  his  faith  and  love  by  a  glorious  martyrdom. 
If,  at  a  time  when  the  general  practice  of  the  Church  was  not 
fully  ascertained  by  him,  he  favoured  an  erroneous  sentiment ; — 
if  in  its  defence,  through  zeal  for  the  exclusive  privileges  of  the 
Church,  the  spouse  of  Christ,  he  was  wanting  in  deference  to 
the  Chief  Bishop — which  I  am  unwilling  to  believe, — there  was 
in  him  no  obstinate  attachment  to  any  heresy  formally  and 
solemnly  proscribed  in  his  day ;  there  was  no  rejection  of  the 
principle  of  authority,  no  proud  revolt  against  his  superior  ; 
and  the  imperfections  to  which  this  controversy  may  have  given 
occasion,  were  covered  by  the  abundance  of  his  charity,  and 
expiated  by  his  death  for  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ.  Stephen, 
as  became  his  office,  justly  resisted  the  dangerous  novelty, 
though  sustained  by  a  prelate  so  illustrious  in  the  Church,  and 
menaced  to  exercise  those  powers  which  God  had  given  him, 
not  against  the  truth,  but  for  the  truth.   Flis  decree  was  ground- 


CONSEQl'FNCKS  OF   STPrHIIN's  DKCREK.  1M5 

ed  on  the  practice  of  llie  Cliurcli,  atitl  received  subsequently 
ilie  assent  of  the  most  venerable  assemblies  of  its  pastors;  and 
liis  memory  is  likewise  in  benediction,  for  he  is  honoured  as  a 
saint  and  martyr  of  Christ,  lliough  you  assert  that  he  "  at- 
tained no  such  distinction."  You  tliink,  that  had  our  system 
then  prevailed,  "the  act  of  Stephen  would  have  produced  one 
of  those  two  results:  either  Cyprian  and  his  African  colleagues 
must  have  submitted  immediately,  or  they  must  have  been  cut 
off  as  obstinate  schismatics."  The  submission  of  Cyprian  is 
supposed  by  St  Augustin,"  and  maintained  by  ISt  Jerome  ;t  but 
granting  that  he  did  not  submit,  Stephen  not  having  actually 
executed  his  threat  of  excommunication,  the  rebapiizing  bish- 
ops were  not  obstinate  schismatics.  'I'liey  were  men  whose 
attachment  to  a  novel  practice  placed  them  in  opposition  with 
the  governing  authority  of  the  Church,  and  their  disobedience 
could  only  be  extenuated  by  the  error  of  judgment,  which  im- 
plied no  heresy  as  long  as  a  formal  delinition  was  wanting  on 
the  subject. 

You  admit  that  Stephen  acted  towards  the  Africans  in  a  man- 
ner similar  to  that  in  which  Victor  had  acted  towards  the  Asi- 
atics. In  both  instances  the  Pontiffs  were  correct,  and  their 
judgment  was  sustained  by  plenary  or  general  councils.  Willi 
regard  to  your  assertion,  that  the  Council  of  Aries  confirmed 
the  indt'j)endence  of  the  African  church,  I  cannot  but  express 
my  regret  that  you  have  allowed  yourself  to  hazard  a  position 
which  cannot  be  sustained  by  proof. 

The  very  abettors  of  the  practice  of  rebaptizing  derived 
their  strongest  argument  from  the  promises  made  by  Christ  to 
Peter,  which,  according  to  them,  regarded  liim  only,  and  the 
Church  connected  with  him,  and  could  not  at  all  be  extended 
to  heretical  conventicles.  "  The  greatness  of  the  error,"  writes 
Firmilian,  in  the  passage  quoted  by  you,  ♦*  and  the  strange 
blindness  of  him  who  says  that  the  remission  of  sins  can  be 
given  in  the  synagf)gues  of  horctirs,  and  does  not  abide  on  the 
foundation  of  the  one  Church,  which  was  once  built  by  Christ 

•     S.  Au£r.  sup.cil  .  p    \'M.  f     S.  Jerome,  8up,  p    i:W 


136  CONTROVERSY  CONCERNING  BAPTISM. 

on  the  rock,  may  be  understood  from  this,  •■  that  to  Peter  alone 
Christ  said  :  '  Whatsoever  thou  shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shall  louse  on  earth, 
shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.'  "t 

You  assert  that  Cyprian  was  not  blamed  for  his  independ- 
ence;  but  you  have  heard  his  great  admirer,  St  Augustin, 
speak  of  his  conduct  in  this  respect,  as  the  blemish  of  a  most 
pure  soul,  covered  with  the  breast  of  charity,  and  cleansed  with 
the  scythe  of  martyrdom.  This  saint  refuses  to  review  or  to 
vindicate  what,  under  excited  feeling,  Cyprian  may  have  writ- 
ten against  Stephen. J  Your  inconsistency  in  censuring  Victor 
and  Stephen  for  "  tyrannical  assumption  of  power,"  whilst  you 
admit  that  they  sustained  the  correct  principle  and  practice, 
must  be  apparent  to  every  reflecting  mind :  still  more  manifest 
is  the  inconsistency  of  your  attempting  to  prove  a  contrast  be- 
tween the  primitive  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Church  of  Rome 
at  this  day,  whilst  you  state  that  these  two  PonlifTs, — the  one 
living  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  the  other  towards  the 
close  of  the  second, — assumed  those  very  powers  which  are  now 
claimed,  and  exercised  the  highest  acts  of  Church  authority.  It 
is  easy  to  imagine  a  contrast,  and  to  cast  censure  on  the  dead, 
whilst  history,  holding  up  facts  to  view,  dissipates  light  theo- 
ries and  assertions,  and  vindicates  these  illustrious  men.  Victor 
and  Stephen,  martyrs  of  Christ,  are  above  the  reach  of  censure. 
Cyprian,  likewise  a  saint  and  martyr,  needs  no  apology  but  that 
ofiered  by  the  great  Augustin,  whose  words,  addressed  to  the 
Donatists,  shall  close  tliis  letter:  "  You  are,  indeed,  accustom- 
ed to  object  to  us  the  letters  of  Cyprian,  the  opinion  of  Cyprian, 
the  Council  of  Cyprian  :  why  do  you  take  the  authority  of  Cy- 
prian for  your  schism,  and  reject  his  example  for  the  peace  of 
the  Church  ?"§ 

*  " Hinc  intelligi  potest — qualis  error  sit."  Bishop  Hopkins  trans- 
lates it:  "He  should  understand,"  referring  it  to  Stephen.  This  violates 
grammar  and  sense. 

t     Firmilian,  ad  Cypr.  inter  opera  Cyp.  p.  157.  Ed.  H. 

t  S.  Aug.  1.  V.  contra  Donatistas,  c.  25,  p.  158.  Ed.  Ven.  Tom.  IX. 
''  Jam  ilia  qua)  in  Stephanuin  irritatus  effudit  retraetare  nolo." 

§     S.  Aug.  1.  ii,  de  bapt.  contra  Donat.  c.  iii.  p.  98. 


LETTER  XL 


LACTANTIUS  AND  EUSEBIUS. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

Yor  introduce  us  to  the  fourth  century  by  referring  to  L.ic- 
tantius,  whose  testimony,  however,  you  declare  to  be  merely 
"  negative."  I  should  hope  to  be  dispensed  from  hearing  such 
a  witness !  Though  negative  for  you,  he  clearly  stales  that 
Peter  and  Paul  preached  at  Rome  all  that  Christ  had  revealed," 
as  appears  from  the  passage  which  you  quote ;  and  towards  the 
close  of  the  same  cliapler,  he  mentions  their  martyrdom  in  that 
city  under  Nero.  The  plan  of  his  work  did  not  require  him  to 
enter  into  ar.  exposition  of  the  organization  of  the  Christian 
Ciiurch,  since  he  wrote  to  show,  that  in  Christianity  was  to 
be  found  that  true  wisdom,  which  was  sought  for  in  vain  in  the 
schools  of  pagan  philosophy,  in  the  last  chapter  only  he  ad- 
verts to  the  heresies  introduced  among  the  professors  of  the 
religion  of  Christ;  and  he  is  content  with  pointing  out  some 
obvious  marks  whereby  all  sects  may  be  avoided,  and  the  true 
religion  ascertained,  which  you  would  do  well  seriously  to  con- 
sider. "  For  when,"  says  he,  *'  they  are  styled  Phrygians,  or 
Novalians,  or  Valenlinians,  or  Marcionitcs,  or  Anihropians,  or 
Arians,  or  by  any  other  name,  they  have  ceased  to  be  Chris- 
tians, since,  having  lost  the  name  of  Christ,  they  have  adopted 
human  and  strange  appellaiions.  'I'hcrefore  the  Catholic 
Church  is  the  only  one  which  retains  the  true  worship.  This 
is  the  fountain  of  truth,  this  is  the  dwelling  of  faith,  this  is  the 
temple  of  God,  into  which  whoever  does  not  enter,  or  from 

•     Lactantius  de  vera  Hap.  1.  iv.  §  2*21,  pp.  2*,*7.  'i'J-'. 

M* 


138  EUSEBIUS. 

which  whoever  departs,  forfeits  the  hope  of  life  and  eternal 
salvation.  It  behoves  no  one  to  flatter  himself  by  obstinate  con- 
tention, for  life  and  salvation  are  at  stake,  which  will  be  lost 
and  forfeited,  unless  cautiously  and  diligently  provided  for. 
But,  however,  as  all  the  assemblies  of  heretics  think  that  they 
especially  are  Christians,  and  that  theirs  is  the  Catholic  Church, 
it  should  be  known  that  the  true  Church  is  that  in  which  con- 
fession and  penance  exist,  which  happily  cures  the  sins  and 
wounds  to  which  the  weakness  of  the  flesh  is  subject."*  With 
this  testimony,  we  have  every  reason  to  be  satisfied. 

We  shall  now  pass  with  you  to  Eusebius,  the  Church  histo- 
rian, who,  you  say,  "  furnishes  the  strongest  circumstantial 
evidence  against  our  doctrine  of  supremacy."  I  thank  you 
for  the  avowal,  and  might  at  once  dispense  myself  from  exam- 
ining his  testimony.  He  furnishes,  confessedly,  no  positive 
evidence  against  it,  and  as  circumstantial  proof,  like  negative 
argumentation,  is  only  admissible  where  positive  evidence  is 
wanting,  we  might  spare  ourselves,  and  our  readers,  the  labour 
of  an  investigation  which  is  necessarily  inconclusive.  The 
authority  of  Eusebius,  as  a  commentator  of  Scripture,  is  first 
put  forward.  On  the  twenty-eighth  verse  of  the  sixty-seventh 
Psalm,  which  you  call  the  sixty-eighth,  after  the  Hebrew  divi- 
sion, where  it  is  said  :  "  there  is  Benjamin,  a  youth  in  ecstacy 
of  mind,"t  or  as  some  render  it,  "  their  instructor,"  "  their 
ruler,"  Eusebius  remarks  that  Paul,  of  that  tribe,  seems  to  be 
pointed  out  by  the  Psalmist;  whence  you  infer  that  Paul  being 
the  subject  of  special  prophecy,  and  being  said  to  rule  over  the 
churches  first,  and  after  Paul  the  other  Apostles,  the  Primacy 
of  Peter  must  have  been  unknown  to  Eusebius.  You  must, 
however,  know,  that  no  argument  can  be  adduced  from  so  un- 
certain an  interpretation,  and  that  as  it  does  not  prove  a  ruling 


*     Lactantius  de  vera  sap.,  1.  iv.  c.  xxx. 

t  Bishop  H.  states  for  our  satisfaction  and  information,  that  Jerome, 
and  after  him  Montanus,  give  the  passage  according  to  the  Hebrew  DTI. 
The  Vulgate  follows  the  Septuagint  interpreters,  who  certainly  knew 
Hebrew,  but  the  sense  of  the  passage  is  obscure. 


FIRST  APOSTLK.  1  3*J 

power  ill  Paul  above  the  other  Aj)osiles,  so  it  ilocs  not  disprove 
a  superior  authority  in  one  ol  them  above  liiin.  lie  niiglit  have 
been  pre;:cnl  to  the  proplietie  vision  as  the  most  conspicuous 
in  the  Apostolic  choir,  for  tlie  greatness  of  his  labours,  the 
number  of  his  writings,  anil  the  ardour  of  liis  solicitude  for  all 
the  churches.  His  miraculous  conversion,  whereby  a  perse- 
cutor became  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  ('Ijrist,  was  a  suflicient  reason 
why  he  should  be  made  the  dislinci  subject  of  prophecy:  but 
the  order  established  among  the  Apostles  must  be  determined, 
not  by  any  obscure  or  mystical  allusion,  but  by  the  express 
words  of  their  Divine  Master. 

The  casual  expression  of  Eusebius,  who  calls  I*aul  "  the  lioly 
Apostle,  and  truly  the  first  of  all,"  is  entirely  misunderstood  by 
you,  as  you  yourself  will  allow  when  I  give  you  the  whole 
sentence.  In  this  work  the  author  purposes  to  overthrow  a 
prevailing  prejudice,  that  Christian  faith  was  a  rash  assent  sus- 
tained by  no  proof.  He  declares  that  he  will  adduce  many  and 
manifest  arguments  to  the  contrary,  and  adds  :  '*  for  since  with- 
in the  recollection  of  our  Fathers,  some  writing  against  the 
(ienliles  and  answering  them,  others  expounding  the  divine 
Scriptures,  others  more  accurately  proving  the  dogmas  of  truth, 
have  left  many  works  to  us,  this  method  which  we  now  adopt 
has  been  discovered,  althougli  first  of  all  that  holy  Apostle 
Paul,  casting  far  away  all  probable  cavilling,  and  bringing 
certain  proofs,  said:  'Our  discourse  and  preaching  are  not 
in  the  persuasive  words  of  human  wisdom,  but  in  the  mani- 
festation of  the  spirit  and  of  power.'  "•  I  leave  it  to  your 
candour  to  say,  whether  Paul  is  liere  called  '  first  of  all  the 
Apostles,'  and  not  rathcry?r.?/,  as  having  long  before  all  apolo- 
gists of  Christianity  proved  it  by  unquestionable  evidences  of 
its  divine  origin.  1  cannot  suppose  that  with  a  knowledge  of 
the  context,  you  ventured  to  lay  stress  upon  this  expression. 
It  would  be  much  more  conducive  to  the  cause  of  truth  to  ad- 

•  Eu»<'b.  <J(?  I'rirp.  Evang.  I.  I.e.;}.  '' rriimiH  omtiimn  sneer  ille 
ApoHtoIu.M  I'aiilun,  probahiliUtiMii  omnnn  cnvillntoriani  longe  abjiciens, 
ac  certas  atrcrens  probationcs  ait." 


140  EUSEBIUS. 

vert  to  the  passages  of  this  same  chapter  in  which  the  privileges 
of  the  Church,  founded  on  the  rock,  are  strongly  insisted  on. 
"It  is  certain,  then,"  says  Eusebius,  "  that  our  Saviour  fore- 
told that  his  doctrine  would  be  preached  throughout  the  world 
in  testimony  to  all  nations,  and  that  the  Church  which  was 
afterwards  to  be  established  by  his  power,  would  be  invincible 
and  impregnable,  nor  ever  overcome  by  death,  but  would  be 
firm  and  immovable  as  established  and  founded  on  a  rock: 
and  he  has  in  fact  done  what  he  foretold.  For  already  the 
fame  of  his  Gospel  has  filled  the  world  from  east  to  west,  and 
has  reached  all  nations,  and  its  preaching  spreads  daily.  The 
Church,  also,  receiving  its  appellation  from  him  has  taken  root, 
and  being  celebrated  to  the  skies  by  the  discourses  of  holy 
men,  shines  with  the  light  and  splendour  of  orthodox  faith  ; 
nor  does  it  flee  before  its  enemies,  nor  yield  to  the  very  gates  of 
death,  in  consequence  of  the  few  words  which  he  uttered  :  '  On 
the  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it.'  '** 

After  this  I  shall  leave  you  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  your 
argument,  from  the  praises  bestowed  by  Eusebius  on  St  Peter, 
for  not  causing  to  be  recorded  by  Mark  the  glorious  promise 
made  him  by  the  Saviour.  It  was  enough  that  he  established 
the  Church  at  Rome,  and  left  there  the  chair  of  authority  ;  and 
that  in  the  distant  churches  of  Asia,  where  the  pre-eminence 
of  the  Roman  See  was  most  likely  to  be  called  in  question,  the 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  of  John  attested  the  privileges  be- 
stowed on  him  who  was  its  founder.  The  modesty  which 
does  not  make  an  ostentatious  display  of  power  is  no  argument 
against  its  existence. 

That  the  authority  conferred  on  Peter  was  not  merely 
personal  is  evident  from  its  nature,  from  its  exercise  and 
recognition  in  all  succeeding  ages.  It  was  the  authority  of  a 
pastor  over  the  entire  flock  of  Christ,  which  always  needs  the 
same  care  and  government;  it  was  that  of  the  ruler  of  a 
spiritual  kingdom,  which  must  always  continue,  lest  by  divi- 

*     Euseb.  de  Praep.  Evang.  1.  1,  c.  3. 


MODESTY  OF   PKTKK.  Ill 

sions  il  slioulil  be  broiiglil  lo  tlesolalion  ;  il  was  as  a  fouiulalion, 
the  taking  away  whereof  would  necessarily  be  the  overthrow 
of  the  entire  edifice.  You  assun\e,  as  undoubted,  ih:il  l*eter 
suppressed  all  mention  of  it  in  his  communications  to  Mark, 
and  omitted  it  in  his  preaching  !  because  Eusebius  admires  his 
modesty  in  not  causing  it  to  be  recorded  by  his  disciple.* 

There  is  a  diirerence,  which  docs  not  seem  to  have  occurred 
to  you,  between  St  Peter  and  St  Paul,  in  regard  to  the  magni- 
fying of  their  office,  which  you  think  Peter  should  have  done 
were  he  really  Primate.  Doubtless,  both  Apostles  might  have 
done  it  lawfully  and  usefully,  whenever  it  was  necessary  to 
vindicate  it  against  the  censorious  and  malignant,  as  it  was  in 
the  case  of  St  ]*aul  when  certain  teachers  at  Corinth  decried 
his  authority  ;  but,  in  stating  the  divine  origin  of  his  apostle- 
ship,  this  Apostle  took  care  lo  observe,  that  he  had  been  a  per- 
secutor, ;uul  that  he  was  not  worthy  of  the  name  of  an  Apostle. 
Had  l*eter  referred  to  the  occasion  in  which  the  extraordinary 
promises  had  been  made  him,  he  would  have  appeared  in  some 
measure  to  proclaim  his  own  praise,  since  his  glorious  con- 
fession of  the  Messiah  had  given  occasion  to  the  eulogies  and 
favours  which  our  Saviour  bestowed  on  him.  His  successors 
in  the  See  of  Rome  can,  without  any  appearance  or  danger  of 
vanity,  dwell  on  the  privileges  of  their  ollice,  because  they 
are  not  conferred  on  them  as  a  personal  reward,  but  are  an 
inheritance  derived  from  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  whose 
merit,  as  St  Leo  so  beautifully  remarks,  does  not  fail  even  in 
the  unworthy  heir  of  his  authority.! 

Arguments,  such  as  those  just  refuted,  couhl  only  have  been 
brought  forward  in  the  entire  absence  of  all  real  evidence 
against  the  Primacy.  You  invite  us,  now,  to  open  the  history 
of  this   ancient  writer,  and   you   as.sure  us,  that  his  testimony 

•  Ji  '.mti*(  irfi<9ifUf  /usfTUfinc  Bishop  Hopkins  trnnnlatCB  it: 
"  by  hi«f  own  toMlimony."     It  HJiouhl  be  "  a  domestic  tesliinony" 

t  Cujiis  etiain  dignitos  in  indigno  haercdc  non  deficit,  tf.  Leo  de 
annivcrsar.  assumpt.  suic. 


142  EUSEBIUS. 

tlierein,  "  both  negatively  and  circumstantially  is  absolutely 
fatal  to  our  claim." 

"  The  names  of  our  Saviour's  Apostles,"  says  Eusebius, 
"  are  sufficiently  obvious  to  every  one,  from  the  Gospels,  but 
of  the  seventy  disciples,  there  is  no  catalogue  any  where.  Cle- 
ment, in  the  fifth  book  of  the  '  Hypotyposes,'  says,  that  the 
Cephas,  of  whom  Paul  says  that  he  came  to  Antioch,  and  that 
he  withstood  him  to  his  face,  was  one  of  the  seventy  disciples 
who  had  the  same  name  with  Peter  the  Apostle."*  So  far,  at 
least,  Eusebius  has  done  no  injury  to  the  Primacy  by  preserv- 
ing the  testimony  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  on  a  point  of  some 
critical  interest.  Another  passage  in  this  chapter  escaped  your 
notice,  in  which  it  is  stated,  on  the  authority  of  St  Paul,  that 
Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  appeared  "  first  of  all  to  Cephas, 
and  afterwards  to  the  twelve  ;"  a  circumstance  not  unworthy  of 
attention. t 

You  next  give  us  an  extract  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  se- 
cond book,  in  which  Eusebius  thus  uses  the  testimony  of  Cle- 
ment. "  He  (Clement)  says,  that  after  the  ascension  of  our 
Saviour,  Peter,  James  and  John,  though  they  had  been  prefer- 
red by  the  Lord,  did  not  contend  for  the  honour,  but  chose 
James  the  Just  for  bishop  of  Jerusalem."  And  again:  "The 
Lord  imparted  the  gift  of  knowledge  to  James  the  Just,  and  to 
John,  and  Peter,  after  his  resurrection."  The  passage  relating 
to  the  miraculous  call  of  Paul  to  the  Apostleship,  does  not  con- 

*     Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  i.  c.  12. 

1  Potter,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  has  not  thought  this  circum- 
stance unworthy  of  remark.  "  Our  Lord  appeared  to  Peter  after  his  re- 
surrection, before  the  rest  of  the  Apostles;  and,  before  this,  he  sent  the 
message  of  his  resurrection  to  him  in  particular."  He  relates  the  various 
acts  of  Peter  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  and  concludes  thus  :  '*  From 
these  and  other  examples  which  occur  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  evident 
that  St  Peter  acted  as  Chief  of  the  College  of  Apostles,  and  so  he  is  con- 
stantly described  by  the  primitive  writers  of  the  Church,  who  call  him 
the  Head,  the  President,  the  Prolocutor,  the  Chief,  the  Foreman  of  the 
Apostles,  with  several  other  titles  of  distinction." — On  Church  Govern- 
ment, pp.  72,74. 


ACTS  OF   PETl.K.  143 

tain  a  word  lo  warrant  llie  idea  llial  he  was  t!ie  chief  of  ihe 
Apostles,  nor  is  tliere  any  semblance  of  proof  that  sucli  was  the 
opinion  of  Eiisel)iiis.  'J'he  admiration  expressed  by  Clement, 
that  there  was  no  contention  among  the  lliree  most  favoured 
Apostles  of  Christ  about  the  iioiiour  of  being  bisliop  of  Jerusa- 
lem, does  not  surely  suppose  that  bishopric  lo  be  something 
greater  than  their  actual  dignity  as  Apostles;  but  shows  that 
they  were  disinterested,  and  that  they  cared  not  to  secure  to 
themselves  a  place  which,  at  that  early  period  of  the  Church, 
had  more  attractions  than  any  other.  Peter  might  have  assumed 
that  special  bishopric,  and  made  Jerusalem,  what  Rome  after- 
wards became,  the  seat  of  his  authority  :  but  he  regarded  not 
his  own  convenience,  but  the  will  and  glory  of  the  Almighty. 
In  this  chapter  Eusebius  mentions  that  Simon  Magus  was  finally 
detected  by  Peter,  and  sullered  the  just  punishment  of  his  per- 
fidy. In  the  fourteenth  chapter  this  is  stated  more  at  large, 
and  the  Primary  of  Peter  is  plainly  and  broadly  asserted. 

Eusebius  first  slates  that  Simon  Magus  was  confounded  and 
exposed  in  Judea  by  Peter  the  Apostle,  and  that  having  ihence 
proceeded  to  Rome,  "  the  all-bountiful  and  kind  providence  that 
watches  over  all  things,  led  to  Rome,  as  against  such  a  pest  of 
life,  the  strongest  and  greatest  of  the  Apostles,  Peter,  who,  by 
reason  of  his  virtue  was  the  leader  of  all  the  rest."*  You 
find  fault  with  the  version  of  this  passage  given  by  Valesius, 
and  you  trarislate  it :  *'  Peter,  the  powerful  and  great  Apostle, 
who,  on  account  of  his  ability,  was  the  advocate  of  all  the  rest." 
Not  to  embarrass  the  general  reader  with  a  critical  disquisition, 
I  refer  lo  the  nolet  for  the  justification  of  ihe  received  version, 

»  ^uttiyA^'ot  ftoti  <;>iXAi^^afr6TxTH  tu*  oXflr»  TrfnnoL  rir  xct^ritir 
««l  f*iy*r  rmf  «Tos-ixa»r,  rsr  s'^itnc  <ri«a  Ta»r  xeiTor»  i,rcirrttf  frjeii. 
yo^it  H«T{e»,  •▼/  rtif  pm/u»it  m:  tri  t*>./ji«tc»  yu/utanot  0i)i  ^ti^otyoLy^i- 
Euscb.  Hint.  Keel.  1.  ii.  11. 

t  I  am  sorry  to  find  that  lJisln>|)  lIopkiiiH  clmrgfs  Valesius  with  un- 
faithfulness in  his  translation,  U'causf  he  liaii  given  the  8UiK»rlalive  most 
poicerful  and  greatest,  and  called  IVter  Prince  and  Patron  of  the  Apo«- 
lies,  rather  tlian  their  advocate.  Every  Greek  scholar  will  perceive  that 
the  bishoj),  and  not  Vnleitius,  is  mistaken.  Adjectives  in  tlie  positive 
form,  followed  by  a  genitive  plural,  sometimes  convey   a  sujierlatire 


144  EUSEBIUS. 

and  merely  observe,  tliat  the  text  contains  a  comparison  which 
your  translation  conceals, — ascribes  to  the  virtue  of  Peter  what 
you  attribute  to  his  ability,  and  represents  him  as  a  leader. 
You  gather  from  it  only  *'  the  primacy  which  an  advocate 
possesses  by  his  skill  in  pleading  a  cause  for  his  clients,"  as  if 
fluency  of  speech,  tact,  and  other  natural  qualifications,  gained 
for  him  a  certain  precedency  of  place,  whilst  the  Scripture 
ascribes  an  authoritative  Primacy  to  his  faith  and  love. 

It  is  needless  to  copy  out  the  passage  which  you  have  quoted 
from  the  next  chapter  of  Eusebius,  in  which  he  relates  the  great 
success  of  the  preaching  of  Peter  at  Rome,  and  the  occasion 
which  was  thereby  presented  to  Mark  to  write  his  Gospel,  in 
order  to  satisfy  the  ardent  wishes  of  the  faithful :  or  the  twenty- 
fifth  chapter,  in  which  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul  is 
narrated,  reference  being  also  made  to  it  in  the  first  chapter  of 
the  third  book.  As  we  are  agreed  on  these  facts,  the  reader 
maybe  spared  their  repetition.  You  observe  that  the  authority 
of  Peter  over  the  other  Apostles  is  not  stated ;  but  it  was  already 
mentioned  in  the  passage  which  we  have  examined,  of  the  four- 
teenth chapter  of  the  preceding  book,  and  no  occasion  was  fur- 
ther offered  to  the  historian  to  make  mention  of  it.  History  is 
written  to  record  facts,  rather  than  to  set  forth  or  define  the  spe- 
cial powers  of  the  various  prelates  of  the  Church. 

From  the  narrative  of  Eusebius,  that  "  after  the  martyrdom  of 
Paul  and  Peter,  Linus  was  the  first  who  received  the  Episco- 
pate of  the  Church  of  the  Romans,"  as  is  stated  in  the  second 
and  fourth  chapters,  you  conclude  that  Peter  was  not  himself 
Bishop  of  Rome.  We  must  then  say  that  it  had  no  Bishop 
in  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  Peter  governed  it  with 
the  plenitude  of  Apostolic  authority.  But  the  object  of  the 
historian  is  to  show  the  succession  of  those  who  followed  Peter, 

sense.  cT/i  Qiuav  means  'svpremc  goddess  .'  Slot.  yuvAix.o'v,  Hhe  most  excel- 
lent of  women.'  Iliad,  pa.ss\m.  ^cttfxovu  ^uvm.  0!  most  excellent  guest, 
Odyss.  xiv.  448.  Patronus  corresponds  to  tt^ck^-c^oc.  It  means  some- 
times *  one  who  pleads  a  cause,'  but  in  this  sense  it  could  scarcely  be  ap- 
plied to  Peter,  as  the  Apostles  needed  no  defender.  In  adding  "  Prin- 
ceps,"  Valesius  only  meant  to  develope  the  meaning  more  accuratelj'^, 
and  used  a  word  applied  by  all  the  Fathers  to  Peter. 


ROMAN    IllSllOP  SUCCESSOR  OF   PETIiR.  145 

whicli  presupposes  the  exercise  of  Episcopal  aulliorily  bv  Inin 
to  whom  all  olliers  succeed.  He  does  not,  ihereforc,  poinl  oul 
Linus  as  the  first  who  governed  the  Homan  Church,  but  •'  as 
the  first  after  Peter,"  as  he  expressly  says,*  and  all  anli(iuiiv 
designates  that  See  "  the  Chair  of  Peter." 

In  recording  the  names  of  the  bishops  who  occupied  tlie 
various  Sees,  Eusebius  does  not  appear  to  you  to  make  any 
distinction  between  the  bishops  wliose  succession  he  records. 
Thus  you  say  •'in  Book  iv.,  ch.  4,  he  gives  us  an  account  of 
what  the  title  to  the  chapter  calls  the  bishops  of  Alexandria 
and  Rome  under  the  same  emperor."  'J'he  inversion  of  order 
in  your  version  is  here  somew  hat  singular,  since  the  title  speaks 
of  Home  and  Alexandria:  nor  is  this  ijie  only  instance  of  this 
character.  Eusebius  generally  observes  this  precedency,  as  in 
the  passage  which  you  have  partly  quoted  :  **  In  the  third  year 
of  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  Alexander,  Bishop  of  the  Romans, 
dies,  having  terminated  llie  tenth  year  of  his  administration, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Xystus.  About  the  same  time  Justus 
succeeds  Primus,  who  was  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  presidency 
over  the  parish  of  the  Alexandrines."!  There  is,  surely,  some 
distinction  in  ilie  order  and  in  tlie  expressions,  and  though  I 
am  not  anxious  to  give  importance  to  either,  whilst  more  conclu- 
sive evidences  abound,  I  cannot  but  remind  you  of  them,  when 
you  assert  so  confidently  the  total  absence  of  all  distinction. 
You  censure  Valesius  for  rendering  in  some  places  the  "Epis- 
copate" by  tlie  classical  term  of  Pontificate,  though  long  before 
the  days  of  Eusebius,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  styled  by  Ter- 
tuUian, — sarcastically  indeed,  but  yet  with  reference  to  his  ac- 
knowledged power, — tlie  Sovereign  Pontifi'. 

If  nothing,  then,  be  said,  as  you  observe,  of  the  Apostolic  See, 
it  is  nevertheless  distinctly  stated  that  Elcutherus,  the  twelfth 
in  succession  from  the  Apostles,  received  the  Episcopate. |    If 


fl-piTi^sr  KKP^ei^'tK  /i/jiAfcTc/i.     Kiis«-l).  1.  iii.  c.  4. 
t      KuHcb.  Hist  ,  1.  iv.  c.  1 
t     Eus.  1.  iv.  c.  1.     Hi«t.  Ecc. 


146  EUSEBIUS. 

'  the  chair  of  Peter,'  '  the  Chief  See,'  '  the  mother  and  root  of  all 
churches,'  be  not  mentioned  by  the  historian,  it  is  sufficient  for 
us  to  know  that  all  these  terms  were  applied  to  the  Roman  Church 
by  St  Cyprian,  nearly  eighty  years  before  Eusebius  wrote  his 
history.  What  you  allege  on  his  authority,  that  the  very  chair 
on  which  James  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem  sat,  was  preserved 
with  reverence  down  to  his  time,*  proves  how  natural  and  how 
ancient  is  the  veneration  of  relics,  or  memorials  of  the  departed 
just:  but  it  proves  nothing  against  the  Apostolic  authority  of 
Peter  and  his  successors,  and  I  know  not  how  its  introduction 
here  can  illustrate  the  point  in  dispute. 

In  regard  to  the  controversy  concerning  the  paschal  observ- 
ance, as  I  have  already  treated  of  it  elsewhere,  I  feel  that  it 
would  be  abusing  the  reader's  patience  to  re-open  its  examina- 
tion. The  facts  related  by  Eusebius  fully  harmonize  with  our 
principles.  Local  synods  were  convoked,  but  that  of  Rome 
carried  with  it  greater  weight  than  all  others.  Victor  directs 
Polycrates  to  assemble  his  fellow  bishops,  and  endeavour  to 
induce  them  to  conform  to  the  general  usage  of  the  Church. 
Polycrates  obeys:  but  all  remonstrate.  Victor,  finding  that 
persuasion  and  all  conciliatory  measures  fail,  resolves  on  the 
severest  exercise  of  his  authority.  Some  deem  this  harshness, 
and  write  with  bitterness  against  it,  whilst  Irenseus  respect- 
fuUyt  remonstrates  ;  and  the  Pontiff  relents,  and  tolerates  what 
he  cannot  now  remedy,  without  severing  from  the  Church  many 
of  its  valuable  members. 

Of  the  points  you  have  marked  as  hostile  to  our  claims,  the 
first  is  the  convocation  of  these  local  councils  without  any  direc- 
tion from  the  Bishop  of  Rome :  yet  you  tell  us  immediately 
after,  that  "Victor,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  takes  upon  him  to 
request  Polycrates,  bishop  of  Samos,  to  summon  a  council  and 
concur  with  the  decision  of  the  Western  churches  ;  threatening 
him,  too,  as  it  seems  by  Polycrates's  answer,  with  the  conse- 
quences of  refusal."     A  request,  accompanied  by  a  threat,  you 

*     Eus.  1.  vii.  c.  19. 

t     ngoo-«x6vT»f.     Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.,  1.  5.  c.  24. 


VICTOR  s  i»u\vi:k  admit ikd.  147 

will  allow,  very  mucli  resembles  a  commaiul,  and  ii  stems  iliat 
Polycraies,  far  from  disregardincr  ihe  threat,  summoned  the 
rouncil,  althouf^h  he  sent  a  slron^^  remonstrance  in  vindiration 
of  the  pratiiee  of  tlie  Eastern  churches.  As  to  the  oilier  synods, 
it  matters  little  for  our  point  whether  they  were  called  together 
!)y  order  of  Victor,  or  whether  they  assembled  in  virtue  of  a 
summons  iVom  the  local  prelate  of  highest  rank.  'J'o  this  day 
provincial  councils  can  be  held  without  any  special  leave  or 
»)rder  from  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  You  slate  that  Euscbius  con- 
lieiuns  Victor.  1  have,  again  and  again,  perused  his  narrative 
without  being  able  to  find  ihe  proof  of  your  assertion.  He  re- 
lates the  nuirmurs  and  remonstrances  of  several  bishops  against 
the  threatened  measure,  who,  as  you  rather  ambiguously  trans- 
late, "pressed  upon  him  with  great  severity."*  The  whole 
narrative  shows  that  the  historian  regarded  the  obstinacy  of 
the  Asiatics  as  unjustifiable,  though  he  may  have  inclined  to 
the  sentiment  of  those  who  thought  the  severity  of  Victor  pre- 
cipitalc.t 

Eusebius's  narrative  of  the  controversy  concerning  baptism, 
shows  that  he  considered  Cyprian  m  error  as  innovating  on 
ancient  usage,  and  Stephen  right  in  opposing  the  change.  'I'he 
great  displeasure  which,  as  he  informs  us,  Stephen  felt;}:  at  the 
attempt  of  Cyprian  to  introduce  a  new  practice,  surely  indicates 
the  feeling  of  a  Superior  who  watehed  over  the  integrity  of 
faith,  and  the  maintenance  of  tradition  unchanged  throughout 

T*  Bi»Tc{:c.  The  verb  here  used  means  invariably  in  Honior  t«> address 
courteously.  Some  later  writers  use  it  to  express  invective.  See  Dain- 
uiii  Lexicon  Ilomericum. 

t  Archbishop  Potter  speaks  of  the  act  of  Victor  as  unjust,  but  add.s 
"  however,  it  is  a  good  evidence  that  excommunication  was  used  at  this 
time  in  the  Church," — On  Cliurch  Gorrrnmcni,  p.  'XV).  lie  might  have 
said  with  equal  truth,  that  it  is  good  evidence  that  the  Roman  JJishop 
claimed  and  exercised  power  over  the  bishops  of  Asia,  and  that  these 
claims  were  nut  called  in  question,  though  the  exercise  of  the  power 
was  complained  of. 

\     Eus.  Hist,  1.  vii.  c.  3.     Eiri  roi/TOt  Jtr-)xtaxrti- 


148  EUSEBIUS. 

the  whole  Church.  The  letter  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  to 
Pope  Xystus,  of  which  the  historian  gives  an  extract,  shows 
the  measures  which  Stephen  had  threatened  to  adopt  against 
the  Asiatic  prelates  who  presumed  to  rebaptize,  but  does  not  at 
all  present  these  measures  as  acts  of  usurped  authority.  On 
the  contrary,  he  states  that,  as  it  was  reported  to  him  that  in 
very  great  synods  the  practice  of  rebaptizing  had  been  sanc- 
tioned, he  had  written  to  Stepiien  in  terms  of  earnest  entreaty.* 
How  all  this  is  "totally  irreconcilable  with  our  doctrine  of 
supremacy,"  you  may  have  perceived,  but  certainly  have  not 
informed  us.  We  see  in  it  strong  evidence  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  exercised  at  that  time  the  same  power  which  his  success- 
or now  claims,  and  though  some  clung  with  fond  attachment 
to  usages  which  he  condemned,  they  did  not  question  the  au- 
thority of  his  office.  They  remonstrated  and  entreated,  and  in 
some  instances  proved  refractory,  always  alleging  that  the  cir- 
cumstances did  not  call  for  the  measures  which  were  urged  on 
them. 

The  history  of  the  council  of  Antioch,  as  related  by  Euse- 
biuSjt  appears  to  you  inconsistent  with  our  doctrine  on  the 
Primacy  of  the  Roman  Bishop,  because  the  heresy  of  Paul  of 
Samosata,  bishop  of  Antioch,  was  condemned  in  that  council, 
he  himself  deposed,  and  Domnus  substituted  in  his  place,  with- 
out any  intervention  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Give  me  leave 
to  observe  again,  that  a  wide  distinction  exists  between  the 
Primacy  itself,  which  is  of  divine  institution,  and  the  exercise 
of  rights  that  may  emanate  from  it,  which  may  be  regulated  by 
special  arrangements  and  enactments  suited  to  the  diversity  of 
times  and  places.  'J'he  causes  of  f^iith  are,  according  to  the 
present  discipline  of  the  Church,  reserved  to  the  Holy  See  and 
(Ecumenical  Councils ;  but  before  the  introduction  of  this  dis- 
cipline, they  were  often  examined  in  councils,  provincial,  na- 
tional, or  of  a  more  ample,  though  not  general  character.  The 
decisions  were  transmitted,  however,  to  the  successor  of  St 

*     Eus.  Hist  ,  1.  vii.  c.  3.      Utp)   tovtocv    tlum   TTdLvrctv  Siojuivoc- 
t     Euseb.  1.  vii.c.27.     Hist.  Eccl. 


ACTS  OF  COUNCILS  SENT  TO  UOMK.  149 

Peter,  and  comiiuinicaletl  likewise  to  the  prelates  of  tlie  Uni- 
versal Church,  liiat  by  llie  confirmation  of  Ilini  uiiose  privi- 
lege it  is  to  confirm  his  brethren  in  faith,  and  the  concurrence 
of  iiis  colleagues,  tliey  might  be  regarded  as  the  authentic 
judgment  of  the  whole  Episcopal  College.  Hence,  the  coun- 
(!il  of  Antioch  directed  the  report  of  their  proceedings  in  the 
first  instance  to  Uionysius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  next  to  Maximus? 
of  Alexandria,  and  then  to  all  their  colleagues,  and  the  whole 
Catholic  Church.  'J'his  was  done  with  one  accord,  by  unani- 
mous determination,*  to  give  the  last  seal  to  the  decision,  and 
it  was  only  when  the  approbation  of  liome  was  received,  that 
the  cause  was  considered  as  terminated. t 

The  deposition  of  the  heretical  bishop,  and  the  substitution 
of  another  by  tiie  council,  were  in  accordance  with  the  disci- 
pline of  that  age.  As  long  as  they  were  not  reserved  to  the 
Chief  Pastor  himself,  these  acts  could  be  done  by  the  local  tri- 
bunal formed  by  the  bishops  of  tiie  province,  with  their  metro- 
politan at  their  liead,  or  a  greater  assembly  of  bishops  with  a 
higher  presiding  prelate.  'I'o  save  the  Episcopal  character  and 
dit'nity  from  being  sacrificed  to  individual  partialities  and  local 
prejudices,  both  are  now  referred  to  the  iJi>hoj)  and  Fatiier  of 
bisliops.  Your  reasoning,  then,  on  the  proceedings  of  the 
council  falls  to  the  ground,  when  the  diversity  of  disciplinary 
regulations  in  various  ages  is  attended  to.  These  proceedings 
were  right,  and  perfectly  in  harmony  with  the  Primacy  ;  but  at 
this  day,  the  course  would  be  somewhat  dilfcrent,  because 
modified  by  posterior  Ecclesiastical  legislation.  I  need  not 
tell  you,  tiiat  in  republics  and  empires,  the  exercise  of  ijic  pre- 
rogatives of  j)ublic  functionaries,  even  of  the  iiighest  order,  may 
wisely  vary  in  cijuformity  witli  positive  enactments  or  regula- 
tions suited  to  circumstances. 

The  high  rank  of  the   Bisliop  of  Kouic  in   the  Church  of 

IK  xwrirr  ytci/unc,  cx  cotnintini   sciitentiu.     liisiiop  Hopkins's  ver- 
sion iias   '  by  comnion  consent'   in  italics,  an  if  to  insinuati'  that  it  was  a 
matter  of  courtosy  and  choice,  rather  than  a  duty  whicli  they  jmljjed  it 
necessary  lofultil.     The  force  of  the  (Ireek  text  is,  by  unanimous  dccrtr. 
t     Augustin,  Serin.  132,  dc  vcrhis  Apcst.  c  10. 


1 50  EDSEBIUS. 

Christ,  is  not  only  apparent  from  the  mention  of  his  name  at 
the  commencement  of  the  epistle  of  the  council,  but  also  from 
the  fact  that  the  pagan  emperor,  Aurelian,  left  the  decision  of 
the  right  of  property  or  occupancy  of  the  Church,  from  which 
Paul  of  Samosata  was  driven,  to  him,  at  least  virtually,  by  or- 
dering the  building  to  be  given  up  to  those  to  whom  the  bishops 
of  Italy  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  should  write.*  The  special 
mention  of  the  Roman  Bishop  shows  his  pre-eminence,  and 
the  mention  of  the  bishops  of  Italy  in  conjunction  with  him 
was,  because  they  were  known  to  be  in  his  communion.  Nei- 
ther he,  nor  they,  could  have  been  regarded  in  the  affairs  of 
the  Eastern  church,  had  no  special  Ecclesiastical  power  been 
vested  in  either.  It  is  manifest  that  they  could  not  claim  it: 
and  consequently  it  must  be  his  prerogative. 

The  letters  of  Constantine,  which  Eusebius  has  preserved, 
are  referred  to  in  the  next  place,  for  evidence  against  the  Pri- 
macy of  the  Roman  Bishop.  To  form  a  more  correct  judg- 
ment of  them,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  explain  the  occa- 
sion on  which  they  were  written.  Early  in  the  fourth  century, 
the  disappointed  ambition  of  some  individuals  gave  rise  to  the 
schism  of  the  Donalists,  who  both  assailed  the  character,  and 
called  in  question  the  lawfulness  of  the  election  and  ordination  of 
Cecilian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  and  endeavoured  to  intrude  Majori- 
nus  in  his  stead.  They  accused  him  of  having  been  ordained 
by,  and  continuing  in  communion  with,  bishops  guilty  of  de- 
livering over  the  Divine  Scriptures  to  the  pagans  in  the  time  of 
persecution.  The  schismatics  applied  to  Anulinus,  proconsul 
of  Africa,  and,  through  him,  to  the  emperor  Constantine,  beg- 
ging that  the  facts  of  the  case  might  be  investigated,  and  that 
the  judges  might  be  chosen  from  Gaul,  where  the  emperor  then 
was.  Constantine,  on  reading  their  petition,  observed  :  '♦  You 
ask  of  me  a  trial  in  the  world,  when  I  myself  await  the  judg- 
ment of  Christ."t  However,  he  deemed  it  expedient  to  yield 
to  their  request,  and  therefore  appointed  three  French  bishops 
to  assist  at  the  trial,  but  referred  the  examination  of  the  cause 

*     Euseb.  1.  vii.  c.  30.  t     Optat.  Milev.  I.  1,  n.  23. 


J r Dr. mi: NT  of  miilciiiadks.  If)! 

to  Miliiatles,  llie  Tisliop  of  liomr,  llial  "before  him,  as  also 
before  Klieticius,  M  iteriius  and  Marinus  his  colleagues,  Cecilian 
niijjhl  be  Jioard,  as  was  most  conformable  lo  the  divine  law." 
On  this  occasion  he  addressed  a  lelier,  whose  inscription  now 
reads:  "  Constantine  Augustus  to  Miltiades,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  to  .Marcus."*  ♦'  Here  it  is  evident  (you  observe)  that  the 
Hisliop  of  Home  is  not  addressed  as  a  man  who  already  held 
the  othce  of  appellant  judge  over  the  whole  Church,  but  con- 
jointly with  Marcus,  and  merely  as  an  equal  among  his  col- 
leagues." To  me,  this  is  not,  by  any  means,  evident.  On  the 
contrary,  Constantine  having  already  expressed  his  astonish- 
ment, that  his  authority  should  be  at  all  appealed  to  in  a  cause 
of  this  nature,  and  havirng  referred  the  matter  lo  Miltiades,  con- 
trary to  the  wishes  of  the  Donatists,  but  "  as  was  most  con- 
formable to  the  divine  law,"  yielded  only  so  far  to  their  request 
as  to  name  three  French  bishops.t  who  would  concur  with  the 
PontitTin  the  hearing  of  the  cause.  He  knew,  therefore,  that 
of  divine  right  it  appertained  lo  this  tribunal.  The  appoint- 
ment of  these  bishops,  as  associate  judges,  was  a  measure  of 
prudence,  directed  to  conciliate  the  Donatists,  and  to  dispose 
iliem  for  receiving  the  decision  with  submission  ;  but  neither 
was  it  intended  nor  calculated  to  reduce  the  PontifT  to  a  state 
of  equality  with  his  colleagues,  in  which  he  might  be  forced  to 
yield  to  their  votes.  With  the  same  view  of  making  the  ex- 
amination with  the  greatest  solemnity,  Melcl)iadest  called  to  his 
aid  fifteen  Italian  bishops,  so  that  the  trial  took  |)lace  in  the 
presence  of  nineteen  bishops,  over  whom  Melchiades  presided. 
Hence  the  judgment  passed  on  this  occasion  is  styled  by  St 
Auguslin  in  many  parts  of  his  works  ♦*  the  judgment  of  Mel- 
(•hiade8."§  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  he  was  not  as  an  equal 
among  his  colleagues,  and  that  he  did  not  act  by  the  mere  de- 
legation of  the  emperor;   for  what  delegate  judge,  to  whom  as- 

•     Euncb.  I  lift.  Eccl.  1.  X.  c   f). 

t  MatiTnuH  of  Colognr,  Ihrn  rnij»idrrr(l  ai  part  of  tho  Gtiiils,  Rhrti- 
ciua  of  Autun,  and  MarinuH  of  Arl<n  Thry  arc  inaccurately  called 
"  bishops  of  Italy"  by  Bishop  Hopkins 

t     The  name  is  variously  written. 

^     Brevic.  CoUat.  dici.  3.  c.  ]S.  c.  2<>,  "  in  judicio  Melchiadis  " 


152  EUSEBIUS. 

sociates  had  been  given  to  control  and  guard  his  decision,  would 
dare  call  in  a  number  of  others,  and  place  them  on  the  judg- 
ment-seat with  those  specially  appointed  ?  As  to  Marcus, 
named  after  Miltiades  in  the  inscription,  we  know  not  who  he 
was,  so  that  it  is  not  easy  to  derive  an  argument  from  the  ad- 
dition of  his  name  to  that  of  the  PontifT.  *  It  is  not  strange  that 
the  complaints  of  the  Donatists  were  made  to  the  emperor,  and 
not  to  the  Pope  ;  for  schismatics  are  wont  to  crouch  to  the  civil 
power,  and  to  seek  its  favour  and  protection ;  but  Constantine 
sufficiently  declared,  that  the  divine  law  had  provided  a  differ- 
ent tribunal. 

The  next  letter  of  Constantine,  quoted  by  you  from  Euse- 
bius,  is  addressed  to  Chrestus,  bishop  of  Syracuse,  and  is  a 
summons  to  attend  a  council  to  be  held  at  Aries,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  terminating  the  schism  for  which  the  sentence  of  the 
Roman  Council  under  Melchiades  had  not  proved  an  efficacious 
remedy.  You  compare  the  address  of  this  epistle  "  singly  to 
the  bishop  of  Syracuse,"  witli  that  to  Miltiades,  the  Roman 
Bishop,  and  Marcus  ;  and  without  caring  to  ascertain  by  what 
chance  this  name  came  there,  or  whom  it  designates,  you  say 
that  this  letter  was  addressed  to  Miltiades  and  others.  But 
this  surely  is  too  trivial  for  a  scholar.  You  remark  that  "  the 
peace  of  the  Church  had  not  been  restored  by  the  judgment  of 
the  bishops  of  Italy,  including  the  Bishop  of  Rome  :  but  is  it 
any  thing  strange  that  schismatics  should  not  acquiesce  in 
a  sentence  pronounced  against  them  ?  "  How  can  it  be  ex- 
pected,"— asks  St  Augustin,  in  reference  to  this  very  case, — 
*'  that  a  party  with  a  bad  cause  should  praise  the  judges  by 
whose  sentence  he  was  defeated  ?"t  The  obstinacy  of  the 
Donatists  excited  the  indignation  of  the  emperor  himself,  who, 
on  hearing  of  their  appeal,  exclaimed  :   "  O  raging  and  frantic 

*  See  Baron.  Ann.  an.  313.  Tom.  III.  p.  105,  whoconjecturesthatitis 
a  mistake,  and  that  an  epithet  of  the  Roman  Bishop  was  originally  there. 
The  learned  lawyer  Clinch  thinks  differently.  See  his  work  on  Church 
Government,  p.  160.     Note. 

t     Aug.  Epist.  WZ. 


NKW   TRIAL  UNNECKSSARY.  158 

audacity  !  as  is  usual  in  ihe  causes  of  llic  CJenlilcs,  il»cy  have 
Iodised  an  appeal  !"*  His  solicitude,  however,  to  restore  peace 
induced  him  to  allow  the  cause  to  be  re-opened  at  Aries  in  a 
more  numerous  assembly,  that  the  complaints  mailc  by  the 
Donatists  of  the  partiality  of  the  judges  might  lose  all  semblance 
of  truth.  ♦'  He  granted,"  says  St  Augustin,  *'  thio  new  trial  at 
Aries,  by  other  bishops,  not  because  it  was  any  longer  neces- 
sary, but  yielding  to  their  perversity,  and  desiring  by  every 
means  possible  lo  restrain  their  importunity. "t  Tiie  adoption 
of  iliis  measure  by  the  emperor,  with  these  views  and  under 
these  circumstances,  in  a  cause  that  more  immediately  regarded 
persons  than  faith,  is  no  proof  that  he  did  not  recognise  the 
Primacy  of  the  Holy  See.  His  interference  in  the  whole  affair 
was  manifestly  reluctant,  and  solely  directed  to  procure  peace, 
by  the  adoption  of  every  measure  that  might  appear  equitable 
and  just,  even  to  the  most  refractory.  In  the  letter  to  Chr'estus, 
he  expressly  states  that  the  discord  should  have  censed,  by  the 
willing  assent  of  the  parties,  on  the  issuing  of  the  juilgment. 
This  you  understand  of  a  voluntary  agreement,  though  a  deci- 
sion surely  iniplies  the  obligation  of  submission. 

With  your  eulogies  of  Kusebius,  whom  you  have  placed 
among  the  saints,  1  am  not  disposed  to  interfere,  farther  than  to 
remark  that  he  is  generally  reputed  to  have  been  infected  with 
the  heresy  of  Arius.  But  his  history  is  a  precious  treasure  of 
antiquity,  in  which  are  preserved  many  docunu-nts  that  would 
otherwise  have  been  lost,  and  the  memory  of  many  facts  thai 
might  otherwise  be  unknown.  It  is,  nevertheless,  liable  to 
many  exceptions,  though  not  as  containing  any  thing  irrecon- 
fileablo  with  the  Primacy  of  Peter  and  his  successors  in  the 
lioman  See.  'i'he  *'  circumstantial  evidence"  which  you 
have  thought  that  you  discovered  in  it  against  this  Primacy,  is 
j)urely  imaginary.  lOusebius,  on  the  contrary,  bears  positive 
evidence  in  its  favour,  by  asserting  that   Pt'ier  was   the  strong 

'     "  ()  rnbida  furoria  audacia  !    Sicut  in  causis  igrrntiliutn  fieri  solct, 
appcUntionrrn  intrrpojiurrunt."    S.  Opt.  Mil.  1.  i.  n.  524. 
f     S.  Auj;.  Kp.  n.2. 


154  EUSEBIUS. 

and  great  one  of  the  Apostles,  tlie  leader  of  the  rest— that  on 
him,  as  on  a  rock,  the  Church  was  built — that  he  preached  the 
faith,  successfully,  at  Rome,  and  sealed  it  by  martyrdom — that 
the  succession  of  bishops  was  there  continued — that  to  Rome 
recourse  was  had  in  all  the  great  controversies  of  the  times — 
and  that  its  bishop  issued  his  decrees  to  Asia,  and  to  Africa, 
equally  as  to  the  less  distant  provinces,  and  enforced  them  with 
the  highest  exercise  of  Ecclesiastical  power.  These  facts  are 
sufficient  to  convince  us  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Christian 
world,  during  the  ages  which  Eusebius  has  described,  and 
abundantly  supply  the  absence  of  pompous  phrases,  or  learned 
dissertations  on  Pontifical  prerogative. 

The  silence  of  the  Council  of  Aries,  in  regard  to  the  authori- 
ty of  the  Holy  See,  will  not  surprise  those  who  consider  that 
no  controversy  agitated  the  Church  at  that  time,  and  that  it  is 
not  the  practice  of  the  Church  to  define  undisputed  doctrines. 
It  was  enough  to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  general  practice  of 
the  Church  in  regard  to  baptism  administered  by  heretics,  and 
thus  by  the  fact  to  sustain  the  exercise  of  Pontifical  authority. 

You  conclude  your  fifteenth  chapter  with  the  observation, 
that  you  "  will  not  say  that  no  honest  mind,  with  these  facts  be- 
fore it,  can  subscribe  to  our  doctrine,  because  you  cannot  tell 
to  what  extent  an  honest  mind  may  be  deluded."  You  will  not, 
of  course,  be  ofl^ended,  if  I,  for  the  same  reason,  abstain  from 
saying,  that  no  honest  mind,  with  the  authorities  of  Scripture, 
and  of  the  early  writers  of  the  Church,  and  the  facts  of  early 
history  before  it,  can  reject  the  Primacy  ;  but  when  you  add, 
that  our  appeal  to  antiquity  on  this  head  presumes  most  strongly 
on  the  ignorance  of  mankind,  the  confidence  of  your  assertion 
leaves  me  without  expression.  For  its  refutation,  I  need  only 
refer  to  the  testimonies  which  you  yourself  have  quoted, 


LETTER  XII. 

GENERAL  COUNCILS. 


Rkjht  Reverend  Sir: 

Your  sixteenth  chapter  contains  an  exposition  of  our  doc- 
trine on  General  Councils,  derived  from  our  Douay  Cate- 
chism, and  from  our  canon  law,  as  you  stale,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  the  canonist  Gibert.  I  regret  that,  in  an  investiga- 
tion of  such  importance,  you  have  not  had  recourse  to  the  foun- 
tain, rather  than  to  any  channel  through  which  its  waters  may 
flow  ;  and  that  you  should  embarrass  the  controversy  concern- 
ing the  Primacy,  by  discussions  about  its  rightful  prerogatives. 
Christian  union  being  so  desirable,  we  should  seek  to  ascertain 
what  is  absolutely  essential  to  our  agreement  in  faith,  and  re- 
serve other  investigations,  as  of  minor  importance,  to  the  happy 
time  in  which  we  might  mutually  embrace  each  other  as  breth- 
ren in  Christ.  Hut  I  am  not  disposed  to  be  fiistidious,  and  1 
cheerfully  assent  to  the  statement  of  the  Catechism  that  '*  the 
definitions  of  a  General  Council,  approved  by  the  Pope,  are  in- 
fallible in  matters  of  faith."  The  reasons  and  proofs  adduced 
by  the  author  of  a  Catechism,  or  a  writer  on  canon  law,  in  sup- 
port or  exj)lanaii()n  of  this  principle,  are  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  doctrine  itself.  Willi  (Jibcrt,  I  maintain,  that  it  is 
the  rightful  prerogative  of  the  Chief  Pastor  of  the  Church, 
to  convoke  the  bishops  of  the  (^'hri.siian  world  in  General 
Council;  for  there  exists  no  oilier  individual,  Ecclesiasti- 
cal or  civil,  whose  summons  all  bishops  throughout  Christen- 
dom are  bound  to  respect.  It  is  his  right  to  preside;  for  in  an 
Ecclesiastical  assembly,  the  highest  dignitary  of  the  Church 
should  surely  occupy  ihe  first  place.      Its    dcfinilions   of  fniih, 


156  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

made  with  his  concurrence,  are  like  those  of  the  Apostolic 
Council,  the  authentic  manifestations  of  revealed  truth,  being 
made  by  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  they  are  distin- 
guished from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  inasmuch  as  these  latter  were 
written  under  the  impulse  and  dictation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whilst  the  doctrinal  definitions  of  councils  suppose  only  a 
peculiar  assistance  of  the  same  divine  Spirit,  by  which  those 
who  compose  them  are  preserved  from  error.  The  distinction 
between  doctrine  and  discipline,  which  you  seem  to  treat  ra- 
ther lightly,  must  be  constantly  held  in  view :  for  the  former, 
being  the  revelation  of  God,  who  is  one  and  unchangeable,  must 
never  vary  ;  whilst  the  latter,  being  a  matter  of  usage  and  posi- 
tive enactment,  is  liable  to  change,  at  the  discretion  of  the  legis- 
lative power  by  which  it  was  enacted.  You  have  not  caught 
the  meaning  of  your  author,  when  you  represent  him  as 
teaching  that  *' the  decisions  of  General  Councils  on  matters 
of  law  are  infallible  !"  "  Circa  jus^^  means,  "  on  principle," 
or  right,  as  distinguished  from  personal  facts.  The  judgment 
of  the  tribunals  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  persons,  is  not  in- 
fallible, because  it  depends  on  human  testimony,  which  may 
deceive ;  but  the  declaration  of  right,  or  principle,  of  what 
is  lawful  or  unlawful,  according  to  the  divine  law,  is  made 
with  unerring  authority. 

The  inferences  which  you  draw  from  the  principles  of  your 
author  are  not  correct.  From  the  contUtions  sj)ecified  being 
sufficient  and  ordinarily  required  to  constitute  a  General  Coun- 
cil, it  does  not  necessarily  follow,  that  the  absence  of  one  or 
other  of  them  can  in  no  way  be  supplied,  and  that  no  decrees 
can  attain  the  same  authority,  unless  all  the  conditions  have 
been  observed.  For  instance,  it  is  the  right  of  the  Pope  to 
call  the  bishops  together;  but  if  they  have  come  together  at 
the  call  of  another,  or  by  a  spontaneous  movement,  and  he  ap- 
prove of  the  convocation,  and  give  his  full  concurrence  to  its 
proceedings,  the  informality  of  the  first  measure  cannot  vitiate 
the  acts  of  the  Council.  In  like  manner  it  is  his  riglit  to  pre- 
side, either  in  person,  or  by  one  or  more  specially  delegated  to 
represent  him  :  but  if  a  Council  were  held  in  which  he  was 


CONVOCATION  or  coiNc  U.S.  157 

not  present  or  rc'[)rc'stMiled,  of  whose  acis,  however,  wlieii  com- 
iminicated  to  liiin,  he  approved, — this  ratilicalion  would  supply 
the  deficiency  ;  and  the  decrees  iniglit  be  re<Tarded  as  the  ex- 
pression of  ilie  faiili  of  the  Epiiscopal  hody  and  its  head — that 
is,  of  the  entire  doctrinal  tribunal  (d'  the  Church.  It  may  be 
well  to  keep  in  mind  these  remarks  wiien  viewiuij  the  proceed- 
ings of  Councds  hehl  in  a  tj^real  diversity  of  circumstances.  In 
approaching  the  examination,  you  anain  implore  our  patience, 
and  urge  us  to  perseverance  in  our  incjuiries  after  truth  ;  vou 
even  pray  for  that  sincere  and  candid  spirit  which  is  essential 
to  every  lover  of  truiii.     May  your  prayer  have  been  heard  ! 

I  shall  spare  my  readers  the  labour  of  examining  your  proofs 
thai  the  Emperor  Constantine  summoned  the  Council  of  Nice, 
by  admitting  the  fact.  I  beg,  however,  to  observe,  that  if  that 
ironvocaiion  was  made  at  the  request  of  the  PontifT,  or  if  it  was 
acquiesced  in  by  him,  it  could  neither  detract  from  its  authority 
as  a  General  Council,  nor  disprove  the  right  of  convocation, 
which  ollicially  belongs  to  the  head  of  the  Church.  That  it 
was  acquiesced  in  by  Silvester,  is  beyond  question  ;  and  we 
have  higlj  authority  for  believing  that  it  was  made  at  his  ex- 
press solicitation.  Kutinus,  an  author  of  the  fifth  century,  says, 
that  Constantine  convoked  the  Council  in  compliance  wilii  the 
wishes  of  the  priests:*  and  in  the  sixth  (Jeneral  Council  held 
at  Constantinople,  Constantine  and  ISilvester  are  said  to  have 
assembled  the  xNicene  (-ouncil.t  In  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
held  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-tive  years  after  that  of  Nice, 
the  Legate  of  the  Holy  JSee  insisted,  successfully,  on  the  exclu- 
sion of  Dioscorus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  from  the  Council,  be- 
cause he  had  *•  presumed  and  dared  to  celebrate  a  General  Synod 
without  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  which  never  had  been  al- 
lowed, never  had  becMi  done. "4:  Would  tins  have  been  affirmed 

"  "  Turn  illc,  ex  Sacerdotuin  Rcntc'ntia,npud  urbcm  Nicasam  Episcopalc 
Concilium  convocat." — KufVin.  1.  1.  HIbI.  KccI.  c.  1. 

t  **  Constanlinus  Hcinp<r  Augusluii,  cl  SiIvcHtcr  laudabihs,  nm^r'iam 
atquc  insigneiu  in  Niciva  iSynuduui  congregabanl.  " — Act.  Ic:',  in  Serin. 
Prosphonctico. 

t  "Quia  prcDsumpsitjCl  ausuicsl  Synoduni  Gcncralcm  faccrc  sineau- 
O 


158  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

without  contradiction,  if  tlie  authority  of  that  See  had  not 
sanctioned  the  convocation  of  the  very  first  Council?  The 
reasons  why  the  formal  summons  was  issued  by  Constanline 
are  sufficiently  obvious.  The  lloman  laws  forbad  all  assem- 
blies unless  sanctioned  by  the  emperor,*  and  the  poverty  of 
most  of  the  bishops  would  have  kept  them  from  the  council, 
had  not  the  imperial  munificence  furnished  them  with  the  privi- 
lege of  conveyance  at  the  expense  of  the  state. t  Hence  Theo- 
doret,  relating  the  summoning  of  the  bishops,  says,  that  Con- 
stantine  autliorized  them  to  use  the  public  horses  and  beasts  of 
burthen,  and  ordered  all  things  to  be  furnished  necessary  for 
their  journey. ± 

In  alkiding  to  this  call,  the  emperor,  addressing  the  bishops, 
observed:  "Being  particularly  desirous  that  a  remed}' might 
be  found  for  existing  dissentions,  through  my  exertions  and 
diligence,  I  sent  for  you  all  without  delay.  And  although,  in- 
deed, I  rejoice  exceedingly  in  beholding  your  assembly,  yet  1 
consider  that  I  shall  have  accomplished  my  desires, §  then  espe- 
cially, when  I  shall  see  all  united  in  mind,  and  one  peaceful 
harmony  prevailing  among  all,  which  it  were  becoming  for 
you,  who  are  consecrated  to  God,  to  obtain  for  others  like- 

thoritate  Sedis  Apostolicae,  quod  nuinquam  licuit,  numquani  factum  est.' 
Act.  J ,  Cone.  Chalc. 

*     Cod.  Theod.  tit.  de  episcopo  et  clericis.  L.  Conventicula. 

t  Hence  the  letters  called  "  Tractoriaj."  Vide  Cod.  L.  xii.  de  cur. 
pub.  tit.  2,  et  tit.  3.  evectiones.  |     Theodoret,  Hist.  1.  1.  c.  7. 

§  Bishop  Hopkins  professes  to  cite  from  our  own  version,  but  he 
mistakes  "  ex  animi  sententia,"  for  the  expression  of  the  sentiments  of 
Constantine,  whereas  it  means,  "  according  to  his  desire,'^  as  may  be 
seen  in  Cicero,  and  as  is  manifest  from  the  text:  totj  «fi  /uixtra.  x.pivct 
KOLT*  lu-xjtz  ifjt.u.vrov  Trpa^iiv.  The  bishop's  translation  is:  ^^  I  think  it 
becomes  me  so  to  order  matters  by  the  expression  of  my  sentiments .''  He 
has  been  equally  unlucky  in  his  version  of  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  : 
"  which  {peaceful  agreement),  indeed,  it  is  right  for  you,  since  you  are 
consecrated  to  God,  and  also  for  others  to  make  the  subject  of  earnest 
prayer  to  the  Deity."  The  text  means  what  1  have  expressed  above, 
and  the  Latin  version  gives  the  same  meaning .  itv  ^  fripois  vfAoa 
TrptTTOV  ail  iin  7rpi(r0iviiv  t»c  tcd  Qiai  x-ct^-itfa/uivovc  See  Euseb.  1.  iii. 
de  Vita  Constant,  c.  xii.  et  Col.  Cone.  Mansi,  Tom.  H.  Col.  GGl. 


FAPAI.   M'GATKS   AT   M(  1,.  1  j'J 

wise."  Voii  Iraiislalii  llu?  tPXi,  or  vprsi(»n,  in  such  a  way  lljal 
llie  coininoii  reader  iiiiglil  suppose  Conslanliiie  hoped  to  eon- 
troiil  the  bisliops  by  tlie  expression  of  his  seiiliinrius,  which 
was  Au"  from  being  the  rase,  since  he  showed  the  most  marked 
respect  towards  them,  declinins^  to  take  his  seat  iiniil  iliey  had 
requested  him,*  and  then  leavinir  the  presidents  of  the  Council 
at  liberty  to  open  the  proccedinj^s.t 

Vour  introiluclioM  here  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  of  which 
we  have  already  treated,  calls  simply  f()r  this  remark,  that, 
allh(jui(h  the  Scripture  does  not  state  who  convened  it,  il  slates 
that  Peter  was  there,  and  spoke  with  authority  and  efTect. 
Silvester,  "  Bishop  of  ancient  Rome,"  was  also  at  Nice,  in  the 
person  of  his  legates,  his  extreme  old  age  having  prevented  his 
personal  attendance.!  The  assembly,  therefore,  though  not 
formally  convened  by  his  summons,  had  his  sanction.  You 
triumph  in  the  silence  «jf  the  emperor,  in  his  address,  in  regard 
to  Silvester;  but  it  is  enough  that  Eusebius  and  Thcodoret 
specially  marked  the  cause  of  absence. S  It  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  the  emperor  shoidd  introduce  his  name  into  the 
address,  which  was  directed  to  express  the  ardent  desire  which 
he  entertained  of  seeing  all  concordant  in  faith.  The  presence 
of  the  legates  of  Silvester  was  a  sufticient  evidence  to  the 
bisliops  that  he  approved  of  the  holding  of  the  Council.  Had 
!''ustaihius,  bishop  of  Anlioch,  spoken  in  reply,  as  you  con- 
ceive, he  had  no  ground  for  complaining  of  any  omission,  in- 
consistent with  the  respect  due  to  the  Pontifical  authority,  nor 
would  courtesy  have  permitted  it;  but,  the  fact  is,  he  addressed 
the  emperor,  at  the  opening  of  the  assembly,  in  a  brief  nianner, 
thanking  (loil  for  the  triumph  of  (Christianity  over  paganism, 
and  exhorting  the  emperor  to  zeal  for  the  faith. |i  The  emperor 
then  delivered  his  address. 

The  assembling  of  the    bishops  of  all   Christendom,  at  the 
•  •all  of  the  first  (Jhrislian  emperor,  was  a  matter  of  no  (lilViculty. 

"  Euscb.  1.  iii.  de  Vita  Constantini,  c.  z 

t  lb.  c.  xiti.   irtfUiiiu  fir    Xoysr   toic   t»c    vuttJcu   Tfi-.tJeuc 

t  Euseb.  1.  iii.  c.  vii.  Vita?  Constantini. 

§  Theodoret,  I.  i    Hijit.  c.  vii.  p.  '21. 

II  Euseb.  1.  iii.  Vila*  Constant,  c.  xi.  Thcodtirct  1.  i    Hist  c.  vii.  p.  85. 


160  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

because  the  empire  was  co-extensive  with  Cliristianity:  but  in 
a  different  order  of  things,  when  rival  and  hostile  potentates 
divide  the  dominion  of  the  ('hristian  world,  a  General  Council 
would  be  impracticable,  if  it  depended  on  the  civil  power. 
Christ  could  not  have  left  his  Church  dependant,  in  a  matter  of 
such  importance,  on  the  contingency  of  the  universal  dominion 
of  one  sovereign,  or  on  the  concurrence  of  many.  He  m.ust 
have  left  in  the  Church  itself  a  power  which,  amidst  all  tlie 
vicissitudes  of  civil  government,  might  be  exercised.  "  The 
Bishop  of  bishops"  is  the  only  one  whose  mandate  can  at  all 
times  reach  all,  and  gather  together,  "  from  the  East  and  from 
the  West,"  those  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  has  placed  to  govern 
the  Church  of  God.  The  judicious  Count  Le  Maistre  ob- 
serves, that  "  those  who  have  ascribed  this  power  to  the  tempo- 
ral authority,  have  not  paid  attention  to  the  strange  paralogism 
of  which  they  were  guilty.  They  suppose  an  universal  and 
even  eternal  monarchy :  they  always  go  back,  without  reflect- 
ing on  it,  to  the  times  in  which  all  the  mitres  could  be  convoked 
by  a  single  sceptre,  or  by  two."* 

You  say,  on  the  authority  of  Gibert,  that  "  the  first  Council 
of  Constantinople  in  their  epistle  to  Theodosius,  in  which  they 
give  him  thanks,  and  render  an  account  of  what  they  had  done, 
declare  that  they  had  been  summoned  together  at  his  command." 
Yet  '*  the  whole  truth"  required  you  to  state  that  in  their 
synodical  letter  to  Pope  Damasus  and  the  Roman  synod,  they 
declare  tliat  they  liad  assembled  at  Constantinople  in  conse- 
quence of  letters  addressed  by  him  to  the  emperor  to  that 
effect.t  This  shows  us  "  the  concord  of  the  emperors  in  the 
cause  of  piety, "| — Damasus  and  his  colleagues,  "  calling  them, 
as  his  own  members,  to  the  synod  at  Rome,  by  means  of  the 
letters  of  the  most  pious  emperor, "§  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome 

*     Du  Pape  1.  i.  c.  iii.p.  24. 

t  ejc  Tuv  7rif>ua-t  ypa.ju/u.:iTaiv  tuv  Tretpa  rue  C/uiTipac  tijuiothto?  /utra 
Tuv  iv  uuvxiHa  atjvzSov,  Trpo;  rov    ^ii<pihirat.TOV    jisi7ih'iA    ^ioSoaiov  imr- 

t        VVV     iV     TM     TXV    OLVrOKpU-TOpatV    TTipt    TfV    iU<r'i0UAV     (TV  fxtptuviu. . 

§      MyMXf    af     oIkhu    /AiKii    TrpoTiK'i.KiiTdLT^i     Six    Toev    T»    ^iofihtTxra 


PRESIUENtY  OF  COINCII.S.  101 

and  his  collcagurs  "  nii<;l)t  not  rci^ni  :il(>nc,  hut  the  Eastern 
bishops  might  reign  with  them."'  The  eon  vocation  of  the 
General  Council  of  Ephcsus  was  made  in  like  manner  by 
Theodosius  the  younger,  but  with  the  full  assent  of  Pope  Ce- 
lestine,  who,  addressing  the  emperor,  informs  him  that  he  would 
be  present  by  those  whom  he  sent.t  St  Leo,  addressing  the 
emperor  Mareian,  assures  him  that  his  zeal,  which  had  led  him 
to  convoke  a  synod,  was  highly  acceptable  ;l  and  the  bisliops 
of  M.Tsia,  writing  to  the  emperor  Leo,  successor  of  iMarcian, 
observe  :  "  Many  bishops  assembled  in  the  city  of  Chalcedon 
by  order  of  Leo,  the  Roman  IJishop,  who  is  truly  the  head  of 
i)ishops."§ 

These  facts  of  history  \c\iye  untouched  i\n'  privilege  wliicli  we 
claim  for  the  Primacy,  because  the  assent  of  the  J^oiitill*  is  in 
all  cases  manifest,  at  least,  from  the  fact  of  his  being  repre- 
sented in  the  council.  You  will,  perhaps,  not  deny  that  the 
emperor  had  no  divine  right  to  summon  the  bishojis  to  council, 
and  if  you  deny  this  right  to  the  l*ontin\  you  must  suppose 
that  there  is  no  authority  left  by  Christ  whereby  these  import- 
ant and  venerable  assemblies  can  be  efleclually  convened.  'J'he 
convocation  of  the  Western  Councils  of  an  (JOcumcnical  cha- 
racter, having  been  confessedly  made  by  the  immediate  autho- 
rity of  tlie  Roman  Hishop,  confirms  the  reasoning  whereby 
this  right  is  vindicated  as  the  privilege  of  Jiis  oflice. 

'J'he  i)residency  of  General  Councils  is  another  privilege 
which  our  canonists  claim  for  the  Roman  Pontiff.  Osius,  a 
bishop  of  Cordova,  a  small  town  in  Spain,  is  admitted  to  have 
presided  at  Nice,  but,  on  the  authority  of  Gibert,  }  on  assert 
that  there  is  no  proof  that  he  was  there  as  the  legate  of  the 
Apostolic  See.  A  fact  o(  this  kind,  however,  is  to  be  deter- 
mined, not  by  the  denial  or  assertion  of  any  modern  writer, 
but  on  historical  testimony,  or,  in  its  absence,  on  presumj)live 
iiid  circumstantial  evidence.      (Jelasius  of  ('yzicuuJ,  an  author 

•     fjii  x*f*(  i/uiatt  fiiviKtCfHTt.  Thcotl.  Eccl.  Ili.st.  1.  v.  c.  ix. 
f     S.  Cclest.  Ep.  ad  Tlicod. 
{     S.  Leo,  Ep  ad  Mareian  Imp. 
§     Cone.  Chalc.  Act.  Col.  Cone.  Hard. 
0» 


162  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

of  the  fifth  century,  expressly  states,  on  the  authority  of  Euse- 
bius,  "  that  the  far-famed  Osius  himself,  of  Spain,  ^VHO  held  the 
PLACE  OF  Silvester,  Bishop  of  the  great  Rome,  together  with 
the  Roman  priests  Vito  and  Vincentius,  was  present,  with  many 
others,  in  that  assembly."*  Photiust  refers  to  the  same  passage ; 
and  though  it  is  not  found  in  Eusebius  at  this  day,  men  of  great 
critical  judgment  consider  that  the  present  reading  warrants 
thebelief  that  it  originally  existed  in  it,  as  quoted  by  Gelasius. 
"From  Spain  itself,"  it  now  reads,  "one  of  great  renown, 
with  many  others,  was  present  in  that  assembly. "J  No  men- 
tion being  made  of  his  name,  we  are  warranted  in  suspecting 
that  it,  with  the  other  words  cited  by  Gelasius,  has  disappeared 
from  the  text.  Socrates,  the  historian,  mentions  him  first,  in 
conjunction  with  the  priests  Vitus  and  Vincentius,  confessedly 
Roman  legates,  and  gives  to  the  three  precedency  of  the  bishops 
of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  which  they  could  not  have  obtain- 
ed, unless  as  representatives  of  a  Bishop  superior  to  these  pa- 
triarchs.§  To  suppose  that  the  presidency  was  given  to  Osius 
on  account  of  his  age,  or  personal  merit,  is  to  show  little  ac- 
quaintance with  the  principle  of  order  uniformly  observed  in 
all  the  Councils  of  the  Church.  The  dignity  of  the  See,  which 
he  occupies  or  represents,  uniformly  determines  who  shall  pre- 
side in  these  venerable  assemblies,  since,  according  to  St  Leo, 
"  although  the  merits  of  prelates  be  sometimes  different,  the 
rights  of  their  Sees  continue  unchanged. "|| 

Your  observations  on  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  and  its 
subscriptions,  might  have  been  spared,  had  you  adverted  to  the 
acknowledged  fact  that  it  was  an  oriental  council,  which  subse- 
quently obtained  a  degree  of  authority  equivalent  to  that  of  a 
General  Council,  from  the  harmony  of  its  decrees  with  that  of 
the  Roman  synod, ^  to  which  its  decrees  were  forwarded,  with 

*     Gelas.  1.  2.  Hist.  Cone.  Nic.  c.  v. 

t     Photius  Cod.  88.  t     Euseb.  1.  3,  de  Vita  Constantini. 

§     Socrates,!.  1.  c   9. 

II     St  Leo,  cit.  ab  Hincmaro,  Ep.  ad  Nicolauni,  p.  520. 
f    See  the  letter  of  the  oriental  bishops  to  Pope  Damasus.    Theodoret, 
1.  5,  c.  9.  Eccl.  Hist. 


CYRIL  Di:rrri:n  dv  celestine.  103 

a  request  to  Pope  Dainasus  to  adopt  them.  That  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  was  not  tliere,  either  in  person  or  by  his  repreeenla- 
lives,  is,  llierefore,  no  proof  against  his  right  to  presiile  at  a 
council  perfectly  Gi^cunienical.  "  Tlic  melancholy  evidence  of 
fraud  in  the  forgery  of  false  subscriptions,"  on  which  yon  dwell 
so  pathetically,  might  not  appear  (juile  so  just  a  suhject  for 
your  strictures,  had  you  rellecled  in  how  many  instances  the 
confusion  of  records,  or  the  mistakes  of  copyists,  may  liave 
produced  the  errors  which  you  rather  hastily  ascribe  to  preme- 
ditation and  corrupt  design.  Ciiarily,  which  ihinkelh  no  evil, 
would  have  reijuircd  you  to  pause  before  you  made  a  charge  of 
80  serious  a  character.  Your  alle^jalion  is  disproved  by  the  fact 
that  no  eflort  is  made  to  prove  that  Papal  legates  presided, 
though  the  names  of  some  who  presided  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  were  by  some  mistake  attached  to  one  manuscript. 
Catholic  divines  are  wont  to  examine  with  the  severest  scrutiny 
all  the  writings  which  have  come  down  from  the  early  ages  of 
the  Ciiurch,  and  if  they  discover  any  reason  to  doubt  of  their 
authority,  they  avow  it  without  hesitation,  although  they  do 
not  easily  ascribe  to  malice  what  may  have  arisen  from  mistake. 

That  St  Cyril,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  presided  in  the  third 
General  Council,  is  a  fact  which  you  stale  after  Ciibcrt, 
Whether  this  author  suppresses  a  fact  equally  certain,  that  Si 
Celesline,  Hishop  of  Rome,  had  by  a  special  letter  commis- 
sioned liim  to  exercise  his  authority  and  hold  his  place,*  I  am 
unable  to  say,  as  his  works  are  not  wiiliin  my  reacli  ;  but  fair 
and  honourable  controversy  certainly  required  that  it  should 
have  been  noticed. 

As  to  the  second  Council  of  Constantinople,  wliich,  like  the 
first,  was  not  (Ecumenical  in  its  origin,  but  obtained,  sul)se- 
quently,  by  the  assent  of  the  I'ontilT  and  of  the  Church,  the 
authority  of  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  the  absence  of  the  Pon- 
tiff, or  his  legates,  is  sufficiently  accounted  for.     'I'iie  oriental 

n/mirtp*  TV  r-i.iru  JuSn^n  it*  i^urix  ^Hfci/uttoc.  Letter  of  Cel.  lo  Cyril, 
c.  xiii.     Act.  Cone.  Eph.  p.  3123.     Coll.  Hardouin,  Tom   1 


164  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

bishops  used  every  possible  effort  to  induce  Pope  Vigilius,  who 
was  then  at  Constantinople,  to  be  present;  but  he,  being  appre- 
hensive of  a  soiiism  in  the  West,  from  tlie  condemnation  of  the 
works  called  the  "  three  chapters,"  refused  to  attend.  The 
bishops  there  assembled  deemed  the  scandal  which  the  tolera- 
tion of  these  works  occasioned  in  the  East  greater  than  any  evil 
that  might  arise  from  their  condemnation,  and,  after  repeated 
embassies  to  Vigilius,  proceeded  to  hold  the  council  without  him. 
They  did  not  form  a  General  Council,  since  the  West  was  not  in 
any  way  represented :  but  they  conceived  that  the  condemnation 
of  these  writings  might  take  place  in  a  council  not  absolutely 
general,  and  they  hoped  ultimately  to  succeed,  as  they  in  fact 
succeeded,  in  obtaining  the  assent  and  ratification  of  the  Pontiff. 
When  you  blazoned  forth  in  capitals,  that  "  the  fathers  of 

THAT    council    DID    NOT    ACKNOWLEDGE    OUR    DOCTRINE,"     yOU 

must  have  been  but  little  acquainted  with  its  acts  and  proceed- 
ings. In  their  letter  to  Vigilius,  they  thus  loudly  profess  their 
veneration  for  the  Apostolic  See  :  "  We  receive  and  embrace 
the  epistles  of  the  prelates  of  the  Apostolic  See  of  Rome,  as 
well  of  the  others,  as  of  Leo,  of  holy  memory,  written  con- 
cerning the  right  faith,  and  the  four  councils,  or  any  one  of 
them."*  They  pray  him  to  grant  that  the  matters  may  be  exa- 
mined— "Your  holiness  presiding  over  us."t  Prudence 
prescribed  to  him  a  different  course,  but  he  granted  permission 
that  the  council  should  be  held.  "  Knowing  your  desire,"  says 
he,  "  we  grant  your  petition,  that  a  canonical  synod  be  held, 
about  the  three  chapters,  concerning  which  dispute  has  arisen."! 
The  Fathers  read  this  document  at  the  opening  of  the  council, 
as  their  authority  for  proceeding:  and  yet  you  say  that  tliey 
did  not  acknowledge  our  doctrine! 

You  do  not  notice  the  great  Council  of  Chalcedon,  held  in 
the  year  451,  in  which  the  presiding  officers  are  thus  stated: 
"Paschasinus  and  Lucentius,  most  reverend  bishops,  and  Boni- 

*     Collut.  i.  p.  G2.     Col.  Hard.  Tom.  III. 

X     T))f    C/uiTipct;   itTViaim   riv    tt'o^ov   iyvaKoric,  iVivtva-af^sv    ha   7r«g/ 


LKCATllS    AT  CIIALC  KDO.V.  105 

lace,  a  most  religious  priest,  holding  the  place  of  the  most 
holy  ami  most  beloved  of  God,  Leo,  Archbishop  of  ancient 
Rome."*  From  these  and  other  similar  preambles  and  facts,  it 
is  evident  that  the  right  of  presiding  was  most  formally  and  so- 
lemnly acknowledged  to  belong  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  liflh  synod  ;  that  it  was  unquestionably  exercised 
in  the  fourth  great  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  the  third  Gene- 
ral Council  of  Ephesus,  by  the  legates  of  the  Apostolic  See; 
and  that  its  exercise  in  the  great  Council  of  Nice  is  the  only 
satisfactory  means  of  accounting  for  the  presidency  of  Osius, 
and  rests  on  the  best  historical  evidence  that  exists  as  to  this 
j)arlicular  fact. 

You  are  careful  to  remark,  with  (libert,  that  in  the  acts  of 
ijic  sixth  General  Council,  which  is  the  tiiird  of  Constantino- 
[)le,  the  emperor  is  said  to  have  presided  ;  but  I  should  suppose 
lliat  this  canonist  must  have  added  something  to  qualify  this 
.-tatcmtnt,  since  the  acts  expressly  and  repeatedly  place  the 
two  priests  and  the  deacon  of  the  Roman  Church  at  the  head 
of  all  the  bishops,  as  "  holding  the  place  of  the  most  blessed  and 
holy  Archbishop  of  ancient  Rome,"  and  these  legates  subscribe 
lirsl,  **  as  holding  the  place  of  the  Universal  Pope  Agalho."t 
It  was  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  Constantine  Pogonatus  sub- 
scribed after  all  the  bishops,  as  having  read  and  assented  to  the 
decrees.  The  kind  of  presidency  ascribed  to  the  emperor  can- 
not be  mistaken.  He  sat  in  a  place  of  honour,  surrounded  by 
his  ollicers,  who  are  mentioned  on  the  occasion  ;  but  the  synod 
consisted  of  the  l)ishops,  and  the  acts  accordingly  make  the 
distinction,  and  invariably  place  the  Roman  legates  at  their 
head.  The  emperor  sat  to  witness  the  deliberations  of  the  Fa- 
ihers,  and  to  encourage  them  by  his  favour  and  protection;  but 
the  representatives  of  the  Chief  Bishop  were  the  presidents  ol 
the  synod,  who  directed  and  sanctioned  its  proceedings.  The 
admission  of  the  Fmprcss  Irene  to  presiile  at  the  eighth  session 

•     Cone.  Chal.  Pam.  J,  p.Jvl.    Toin.  II.  Hard.  C'ol. 

f  Tc»  T9W6»  »wi)^mr  AymJ^miot  m  /MdU<{i«»T«'T*  mat  6<it«juiri«»(  TaT« 
iTiKtai:   V»fAii(. 


160  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

of  the  scveiuh  General  Council,  must  at  once  determine  the  ex- 
pression to  signify  the  mere  honorary  distinction  of  place;  for 
the  degradation  of  the  Episcopal  character  was  not  then  so 
complete  that  bishops  should  recognise  in  a  woman  the  Head 
of  the  Church,  and  the  fountain  of  Ecclesiastical  authority.  In 
this  way  also  the  Emperor  Basil  presided  in  the  eighth  coun- 
cil. If  you  turn  to  the  records  of  tliese  venerable  assemblies,  you 
will  find  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  marked  on  almost 
every  page,  in  characters  not  to  be  mistaken.  The  seventh 
General  Council,  which  is  the  second  of  Nice,  was  opened, — 
"  Peter,  the  most  reverend  Arch-Priest  of  the  most  holy 
Church  of  Rome,  of  tlie  holy  Apostle  Peter,  and  Peter,  the 
most  reverend  priest,  monk  and  abbot  of  the  monastery  of  St 
Sabbas  at  Rome,  holding  the  place  of  the  Apostolic  See  of  the 
most  holy  Hadrian,  Archbishop  of  ancient  Rome  ;"* — and  its 
definitions  were  subscribed  to  by  them  before  all  others.!  When 
their  proceedings  were  drawing  to  a  close,  and  the  doctrinal 
decrees  had  already  been  made,  the  empress  and  her  son  signi- 
fied their  wish  that  the  Fathers  should  assemble  in  their  pre- 
sence, which  led  to  an  adjournment  from  Nice  to  Constantino- 
ple. The  most  honourable  place  was  occupied  by  her.  She 
did  not,  however,  preside  with  authority,  but  as  an  humble 
disciple  of  faith,  she  begged  that  the  definition  which  had  been 
made  might  be  read  in  the  hearing  of  her  and  of  all  the  faith- 
ful.|  The  eighth  General  Council  was  opened, — "  Donatus  and 
Stephen,  bishops  most  beloved  of  God,  and  Marinus,  holding 
the  place  of  Hadrian,  tlie  most  holy  and  blessed  Archbishop  of 
ancient  Rome."§  The  emperor  was  not  present  before  the 
sixth  session,  when  he  is  said  to  have  presided,  being  seated 
on  the  right;  but  he  is  distinguished  from  the  synod,  which 
consisted  of  the  bishops,  with  the  papal  legates  at  their  head.|| 

*     Act.  Cone.  Tom.  IV.  p.  27.  Hard.  Col.  Prima  Actio. 

t     Ibid.  p.  748.  t     Ibid.  Cone.  Hard.  p.  483. 

§     Ibid.  Tom.  V.  p.  764. 

II  Ibid.  P.  824.  "  Proesidente  eodem  piissimo  et  amico  Christi  im- 
peratore  in  dextera  parte  magni  nominis  templi  magnce  ecclesiae  :  con- 
veniente  sancta  ac  universali  synodo,  id  est  Donato,  etc. 


WESTERN  COl'NCILS.  107 

The  legates,  as  usual,  subscribe  before  all  others,  as  lioldint^ 
the  place  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff"  and  Universal  Pope  ;"^  but 
they  specially  limit  the  confirmation  of  the  decrees  to  such  as 
may  be  approved  of  by  him  : — "  Usque  ad  voluntalem  ejusdem 
eximii  pnesulis."  'I'hus  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  the 
eight  councils  held  in  the  East  were  convened,  either  at  the  re- 
quest, or  wiih  the  concurrence  of  the  PontifTs,  who  presided  by 
liieir  legates  in  the  six  which  were  G^^cumenical.  The  right  to 
convene  and  to  preside  was  distinctly  admitted  to  belong  to  the 
Pontiff  by  the  other  two,  which  originally  were  not  of  the 
same  higii  authority.  'J'he  Western  councils  olTer  tiie  most 
incontrovertible  proofs  of  the  same  riglits,  inasmucli  as  they 
were  all  solemnly  convened  by  the  Popes,  who  presided  in 
most  of  them  in  person,  in  the  rest  by  their  legates.  You 
assert,  that  even  in  the  West  "  there  were  some  instances  to- 
tally subversive  of  our  doctrine,"  and  you  make  special  refer- 
ence to  the  Councils  of  Pisa  and  Basle;  but  you  shoukl  know 
that  both  these  councils  are  of  a  questionable  character,  and 
that  even  in  them  the  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Bishop  was  ex- 
plicitly avowed.  The  Council  of  Pisa  was  convened  by  some 
cardinals,  at  a  time  when  there  were  tv.o  claimants  to  the  Pon- 
tifical chair;  a  case  wherein  Gibert,  with  other  canonists,  as 
you  have  stated,  maintain  the  right  of  assembling  without  the 
summons  of  the  Poniifl'.  The  cardinals  acted  on  that  j)rinciple, 
but  at  the  same  lime  declared,  in  the  most  solemn  icrms,  the 
divine  institution  and  j)riviicges  of  the  Primacy.  "Our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  (Jhrist,  the  Son  of  God,"  say  they  in  their 
letter  to  Gregory  XII.,  "  when  about  to  ascend  to  his  Father, 
not  to  leave  without  a  Shepherd  the  fiock  redeemed  by  his  blood, 
laid  the  foundations  of  his  militant  Church  principally  on  bless- 
ed Peter;  and  in  oriicr  that  he  might  distribute  his  gifts  tiirough- 
out  the  whole  body  from  him,  as  from  the  head,  and  might 
strengthen  others  in  the  Christian  religion  by  the  stability  of 
liis  faith  ; — tluit  bv  this  one  Head  he  might  dcsijrnate  one  ori- 
gin,  and  one  Church,  wliicli  extends  her  branches  through  the 

•     Cone.  Hard   Tmi.  V.  p.  'J2t>. 


.168  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

entire  world  with  abundant  fertility  ;  that  thereby  lie  might 
show  to  the  successors  of  blessed  Peter,  and  to  the  flock  of  the 
Lord,  that  there  is  one  spouse  of  Christ,  uncorrupt  and  chaste, 
guarding  chastity  with  chaste  modesty."*  The  Council  of 
15asle  was  called  by  Pope  Eugenius,  and  was  opened  under  the 
presidency  of  Cardinal  Julian,  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See.t 
These  councils,  then,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  their  au- 
thority, and  whatever  disputes  were  excited  in  the  latter  about 
the  extent  of  Pontifical  prerogative,  afford  no  grounds  for  ques- 
tioning the  right  of  the  Pope  to  convene  general  councils,  and 
to  preside  in  them,  either  in  person  or  by  his  legates.  As  you 
are  silent  as  to  the  confirmation  of  councils  by  the  Pontiff,  I 
have  not  introduced  it  into  this  discussion,  though  it  is  a  still 
more  splendid  evidence  of  his  spiritual  supremacy.  From  the 
East,  as  well  as  from  the  West,  their  decrees  were  sent  to 
Rome  to  receive  the  sanction  of  him  whose  office  it  is  to  con- 
firm his  brethren.  "  We  pray  you,"  say  the  Fathers  of  Chal- 
cedon,  in  their  synodical  letter  to  Leo,  "  to  honour  our  judg- 
ment by  your  decrees,  and  as  we  have  added  the  harmony  of 
our  assent  to  our  head  in  what  is  good,  so  may  your  Holiness 
vouchsafe  to  supply  to  your  children  what  is  wanting. "J  Privi- 
leges of  this  high  character,  voluntarily  admitted  by  the  assem- 
bled prelates  of  the  whole  Christian  Church,  in  all  ages,  are  no 
equivocal  evidences  of  the  Primacy. 

*     Cone.  Pisan.  X.     Litteras  Cardinahum  ad  Gregorium,  Tom.  VIII. 
Col.  Hard.  Col.  15G. 

t     Cone.  Bas.  lb.  Col.  1106. 
t    Act.  xvi.  Cone  Chale. 


LETTER  XIIL 


NICENE    CANONS. 


Right  Reverend  Sir: 

To  determine  the  meaning  of  laws,  it  is  doubtless  of  great 
importance  to  ascertain  the  occasion  of  their  enactment.  You 
charitably  suppose  that  the  attempts  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to 
extend  his  authority  to  the  Asiatic  and  African  churches,  led 
the  Fathers  of  Nice  to  enact  the  celebrated  sixth  canon,  with  a 
view  to  prescribe  limits  to  his  ambition.  "  Let  the  ancient  cus- 
toms," says  the  council,  "  be  kept,  which  are  in  Egypt, 
Libya  and  Pentapolis,  that  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  may  have 
general  power  overall  these,  as  this  is  the  custom  also  with  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  In  like  manner,  also,  in  Antioch  and  in  the 
other  provinces,  let  the  privileges,  dignities,  and  authority  of 
the  churches  be  preserved."*  Were  tlie  object  of  the  Fathers 
to  restrain  Roman  power,  they  should  surely  have  made  some 
direct  prohibition,  as  you  yourself  argue,  in  regard  to  the  detini- 

*  Coll.  Hard.  p.  432.  This  canon,  as  recited  at  Chalcedon,  is  trans- 
lated by  Clinch:  "Let  the  imnieniorial  usages  prevail,  which  exist  in 
Egypt;  so  that  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  shall  have  general  authority  there, 
because  such  is  the  usage  with  the  Bishop  in  Roinc."  iti//«  kxi  ra  ^v 
PufxM  tTnaiio7r(»  THTo  crvYif^K  trt.  Clinch  justly  observes,  that  "  from  the 
Greek  it  appears,  Hrst,  that  no  confirmation  was  given  at  Nicea  to  the 
usage  of  the  Church  of  Rome  :  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  usage  of  Alex- 
andria wa.s  confirmed,  because  it  had  the  authority  of  Roman  usage.  Se- 
condly, it  is  equally  plain,  that  no  boundaries  arc  either  marked,  or  al- 
luded to,  within  which  the  Roman  ijishnp  exercised  that  general  autlu.rity 
which  the  Fatln^rs  had  in  view."  See  Letters  on  Church  (Government, 
by  James  Rernard  Clinch,  Esq,  Barrister  at  Law,  p.  27\.  Dultlin, 
1812. 

P 


170  NICENE  CANONS. 

tion  of  the  Council  of  Florence,  and  not  limited  themselves  to 
an  incidental  reference,  which  implies  no  restriction  whatever. 
On  the  contrary,  the  reference  is  expressly  made  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  usages  and  privileges  of  Alexandria,  as  conformable 
to  the  usage  of  the  Roman  Bishop,  without  the  least  indication 
of  any  undue  exercise  of  authority  by  him. 

The  manifest  object  is  to  settle  and  maintain  the  rights  of 
the  bishops  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  throughout  the  districts 
immediately  subject  to  them,  as  metropolitans,  or  as  patriarchs, 
according  to  a  more  modern  appellation.  Hence  the  canon 
afterwards  declares,  that  if  any  bishop  be  made  without  the 
consent  of  his  metropolitan,  he  is  not  a  bishop.  History  has, 
fortunately,  recorded  the  true  cause  of  this  canon,  which  hap- 
pens to  be  altogether  different  from  that  which  you  have  ima- 
gined. We  are  informed  by  St  Alhanasius  that  Meletius,  a 
bishop  of  Egypt,  having  been  deposed  by  St  Peter  of  Alexan- 
dria, formed  a  schism,  and  threw  off*  all  dependence  on  the 
bishop  of  that  city.  He  even  took  on  him  to  establish  new 
churches  as  Episcopal  within  his  intended  province.*  In  com- 
manding then  the  ancient  usages  to  be  maintained,  whereby 
Egypt,  Lybia  and  Pentapolis  were  subjected  to  the  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  the  Fathers  indirectly  proscribed  these  schismatics.! 
Vv'hether  the  words  or  object  of  this  canon  be  considered,  your 
inferences  from  it  are  unwarranted.  You  assert  that  it  traces 
the  origin  of  the  power  of  the  Roman  Bishop  to  custom  :  but 
there  is  nothing  in  it  to  sustain  this  position.  The  Fathers 
decreed  nothing  about  Rome  :  they  defined  not  the  limits  or  the 
origin  of  its  authority;  but  they  order  the  privileges  of  the 
bishop  of  Alexandria  to  be  maintainp,d,  because  it  is  customary 
also  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome.    The  sequel  shows  that  it  was 

*     Apol.  2.  Athanas. 

j  Archbishop  Potter  admits  that  "this  canon  was  enacted,  upon  a 
complaint  of  Alexander,  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  that  the  metropoliti- 
cal  rights  of  his  See  had  been  invaded  by  Meletius,  the  schismatical 
bishop  of  Lycopolis  in  Thebais,  who  had  taken  upon  him  to  ordain  bish- 
ops without  Alexander's  consent."— Church  Government,  p.  188.  See 
also  Theodoret,  Hist.,  1.  1,  c.  ix. 


SIXTH   NIC  F.N  E  CANON.  171 

l!»e  invasion  of  imMi-oj)()liiic';il  riglils  by  scl^^;m:l^!t•  ordinations, 
not  any  ag-^ression  on  llie  nietropolilnns  by  ibe  Konian  Hi.shop, 
thai  was  souglit  lo  be  guarded  against.  You  thence,  liowever, 
take  occasion  to  argue  against  llie  Prinnacy,  because  the  ap- 
pointment or  confirmation  of  bisliops  is  one  of  the  prerogatives 
exerci?ed,  at  present,  by  the  Holy  8ce  ;  but  you  make  no  al- 
lowance for  dilTerence  of  discipline  adapted  to  diversity  of  cir- 
cumstances. We  freely  admit  that  recourse  was  not  then  had 
from  the  remote  parts  of  tlie  Cliurcii, — from  the  provinces  sub- 
ject to  the  patriarciis  of  Alexandria  and  Anliocii, — to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  for  iiis  confirmation  of  Episcopal  appointments.  Each 
patriarcli  exercised  within  iiis  limits  ample  jurisdiction''  in  all 
tilings  appertaining  to  the  ordinary  government  and  wants  of 
the  Ciiurch.  This  system  was  adapted  to  the  times,  and  had 
the  full  sanction  of  the  Holy  See.  Did  these  two  great  patri- 
archates still  continue  in  their  ancient  splendour,  there  is  no 
probability  that  any  attempt  would  be  made  to  innovate  on  this 
ancient  order  of  things  :  but  tiie  Mussulman  has  long  since  over- 
turned the  chairs  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria;  and  the  bishop 
of  that  See,  which  alone  has  been  proof  against  all  the  powers 
of  hell,  is  urged  by  the  solicitude  for  all  the  churches,  to  pro- 
vide them  with  pastors  in  a  way  best  suited  lo  their  wants. 
The  mode  of  the  appointment  of  bishops  is  one  of  those  matters 
of  discipline  which  depend  on  positive  legislation  or  concession, 
and  which  can  vary  according  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Church. 

The  commencement  of  this  sixth  canon  of  Nice,  as  recited 
in  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  states  that  "  the  Roman  Church 
always  had  the  Primacy."  You  take  occasion,  hence,  to  ex- 
press your  ''sorrow  at  being  obliged  to  notice  one  of  those 
cases  in  which  our  writers  have  thought  it  expedient  to  make 
authority  when  they  could  find  none."  It  may  assuage  your 
grief  lo  learn  that  the  fraud  is  iiotciuite  so  certain  as  you  fancy. 
The  authority  of  Quesnel,  whom  you  seem  to  have  taken  for  a 
devoted  C'atholic,  is  not  sullicienl  to  convince  us  that  this  por- 
tion or  title  of  the  canon  is  a  forgery,  and  the  surmises  of  the 

*      tutrix. 


172  NICENE  CANONS. 

Jansenist,  on  this  point,  must  be  tested  by  an  appeal  to  evi- 
dence. In  the  fifteenth  session  of  the  great  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  held  in  the  year  451,  a  canon  was  passed^  giving  to  the 
bishop  of  Constantinople  the  second  place  in  the  hierarchy,  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  In  the 
subsequent  session,  the  legates  complained  of  this  enactment, 
and  read  for  the  Fathers  the  special  instructions  which  they 
had  received  from  Pope  Leo,  to  maintain  the  order  approved  of 
at  Nice,  and  the  dignity  of  the  Apostolic  See.  By  consent  of 
the  council  the  subject  was  re-opened  for  discussion,  and  per- 
mission given  to  read  the  documents  that  had  reference  to  the 
case.  Paschasinus,  one  of  the  legates,  commenced  by  reading 
the  sixth  canon  in  these  words :  "  The  Church  of  Rome  always 
has  had*  the  Primacy :  but  let  Egypt  observe  that  the  bishop 
of  Alexandria  should  hold  general  power  there,  because  such 
is  the  usage  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  &c."  If  the  assertion  of 
the  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Church,  publicly  made  in  the  council 
by  the  legate,  were  unfounded, — if  it  was  an  addition  to  the  ori- 
ginal canon,  surely  the  attempt  would  have  met  with  instant 
exposure  and  vehement  reprobation.  But,  perhaps,  it  was  sub- 
sequently added  to  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  with 
a  view  to  sustain  the  Primacy.  Why  did  not  the  bold  inter- 
polator add  it  rather  to  the  collection  of  Nicene  canons  ?  Be- 
sides, the  Primacy  was  fully  acknowledged  in  the  council  by 
the  judges,  even  whilst  they  persevered  in  the  measure  against 
which  the  legates  had  contended.  "  We  consider,*'  say  they, 
"  that  the  Primacy  of  all,  and  that  the  chief  honour,  according 
to  the  canons,  should  be  preserved  to  the  most  beloved  of  God, 
Archbishop  of  ancient  Rome."t  There  was,  then,  no  need  of 
foisting  the  passage  into  the  text  of  the  sixth  canon;  and  the 
reference  made  by  the  judges  to  the  canons  is  proof  that  their 
authority  had  been  alleged.  The  legates  entered  their  protest 
against  the  privileges  granted  to  the  bishop  of  Constantinople, 

*  i^i  hahuit.  Bishop  Hopkins  puts  hahcat.  Is  this  a  different  read- 
ing, or  an  attempt  to  make  it  appear  that  the  Primacy  was,  at  most,  only 
by  concession  of  the  council?     Act.  16,  Cone.  Chalc.  Col,  637. 

t     Ibidem,  Col.  641. 


OBSOLETE  CANONS.  173 

until  the  Holy  See  should  take  such  measures  as  might  seem 
necessary. 

I  do  not  wisli  to  dwell  furliier  on  the  authenticity  of  this 
passage,  as  the  proofs  of  the  Primacy  are  otherwise  unques- 
tionable and  abundant.  It  is  enough  to  have  shown  that  there 
is  strong  ground  to  believe  it  to  be  authentic,  and  that  there  is 
no  shadow  of  reason  for  supposing  it  to  have  been  added  to  the 
text,  from  any  wish  or  design  to  "make  authority."  As  the 
right  of  appeal,  of  which  you  speak  in  your  note,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  Quesnel,  will  probably  occur  in  our  progress,  I  shall 
not  notice,  at  present,  the  rash  assertion  of  that  writer,  whose 
opposition  to  the  Apostolic  See  is  easily  intelligible,  when  we 
recollect  that  one  hundred  and  one  Jansenistical  propositions, 
extracted  from  his  works,  were  condemned  by  that  authority 
which  lie  insidiously  laboured  to  undermine. 

Let  me  now  ask  you,  if  the  riglits  and  privileges  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  were  to  be  determined  by  the  words  of  the  Nicene 
canon,  as  it  now  reads,  without  that  prefatory  remark,  would 
it  be  possible  to  ascertain  what  they  are  ?  If  you  were  one  of 
a  numerous  assembly  anxious  to  put  a  barrier  against  Roman 
encroachments,  would  you  content  yourself  with  words  so 
vague  and  indefinite  ?  How  then  can  you  preteni^that  such 
was  the  view  with  which  they  were  adopted  ?  You  ask:  "  why 
the  Fathers  did  not  put  in  some  clause  saving  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  Apostolic  See?"  I  answer  that  they  did  in 
the  terms  recorded  at  Chalcedon.  But,  waiving  this  proof,  I 
maintain  that,  having  specified  no  limits  to  its  power,  and  left 
wholly  untouched  its  prerof^atives,  they  showed  sufficiently 
that  its  rights  fiowed  from  a  higher  source  than  Ecclesiastical 
legislation. 

Your  efforts  to  prove  that  whiUl  wc  claim  infallible  autho- 
rity for  the  Nicene  decrees,  we  do  not  ob^^erve  them,  will  not 
make  much  impression  on  those  who  understand  the  wide  dif- 
ference that  exists  between  auihenlic  declarations  of  revealed 
truth,  and  laws  appertaining  to  order  and  discipline.  You  hold, 
I  presume,  as  an  oracle  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  decree  of  the 
Apostolic  Council,  declaring  the  exemption  of  converted  Gen- 


174  NICENE  CANONS. 

tiles  from  the  Mosaic  observances;  and  yet,  notM'ithstanding 
the  prohibition  of  eating  blood  which  accompanied  it,  you 
would  scarcely  scruple  to  violate  the  letter  of  the  enactment. 

The  canon  prescribing  the  holding  of  provincial  councils 
twice  in  each  year,  though  a  wise  and  salutary  enactment  for 
that  period,  is  no  longer  in  force  ;  and  our  present  discipline 
limits  the  obligation  to  triennial  councils.  The  severity  of 
public  penance  has  vanished  with  the  decay  of  Christian  fer- 
vour; but  the  Chief  Bishop  of  the  Church  still  exercises  that 
indulgence  which  the  twelfth  canon  leaves  to  the  discretion  of 
bishops  in  favour  of  the  penitent.  The  discipline  of  not  bend- 
ing the  knees  on  the  Lord's  day,  and  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
is  retained  in  regard  to  certain  prayers  performed  at  other 
times  on  bended  knees ;  though  the  more  solemn  acts  of  hom- 
age are  now  performed  in  that  most  humble  posture.  How 
you  could  seriously  bring  such  things  forward  to  disprove  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church,  or  the  Primacy  of  the  Pontiff,  is  to 
me  surprising,  especially  as  you  know  and  feel  the  difference 
between  doctrine  and  legislation. 

You  refer  to  the  seventh  canon,  which  confirms  the  ancient 
custom  of  giving  special  honour  to  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
without  pipjudice  to  the  rights  of  the  metropolitan ;  and  you 
observe :  "  Here,  as  in  the  other  canon  {the  sixth),  we  see  the 
council  referring  to  custom  and  ancient  tradition,  desirous  to 
prevent  encroachment,  and  altogether  silent  with  respect  to 
Rome."  There  was  no  occasion  for  reference  to  Rome  in 
legislating  on  the  relation  between  an  Eastern  bishop  and  his 
metropolitan.  You  could,  with  much  greater  plausibility,  have 
expressed  surprise  at  the  silence  observed  with  regard  to  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  to  whom  the  metropolitan  bishop  of 
Caesarea,  and  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  were  more  immediately 
subject.  The  omission  of  all  reference  to  the  Roman  bishop, 
is  only  remarkable  whenever  the  general  interests  of  religion, 
specially  committed  to  his  guardianship,  are  at  stake  :  but  on 
such  occasions  you  find  him  a  prominent  character,  preceding 
all  his  colleagues  in  the  measures  for  maintaining  truth  and  or- 
der, or  adding  to  their  decrees  the  weight  of  his  high  authority. 


LETTER   XIV. 


ST  ATHANASIUS. 


Right  Reverend  Sir: 

You  assert  "  that  the  Fathers  of  tlie  age  in  wliicli  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  was  held,  did  not  attribute  any  infallibility  to  it," 
and,  in  proof  of  your  assertion,  you  extract  several  passages 
from  the  works  of  the  celebrated  champion  of  its  faith,  Athana- 
sius.  "  He  defends,"  you  say,  "  the  council  by  Scripture  and  tra- 
dition, but  never  assumes  the  ground  that  its  decisions  were  of 
equal  force  with  Scripture,  and  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
As  there  is  some  ambiguity  in  tliese  last  piirases,  I  should  pre- 
fer saying, — that  its  decisions  were  made  under  the  guidance,  and 
willi  tiie  special  assistance,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  'i'o  defend  the 
doctrines  defined  in  a  council  by  Scripture  and  tradition,  is 
quite  conformable  to  our  principles  and  practice,  because  we 
claim  for  llie  Churcli  no  right  to  invent  doctrines,  but  to  de- 
liver them  as  they  came  down  from  the  commencement.  Wlieii 
labouring  to  convince  those  who  reject  tlie  Council  of  Trent, 
and  refuse  assent  to  the  proofs  of  its  authority,  we  also  are  ac- 
customed to  show  from  Scripture  and  tradition  the  several  doc- 
trines which  have  been  revealed  ;  nor  do  we  urge  solely,  or 
principally,  the  argument  derived  from  Church  authority.  In 
impugning  the  autliority  of  councils,  1  am  surprised  that  you 
should  venture  to  appeal  to  a  work  of  Athanasius,  in  which  he 
most  expressly  maintains  the  authority  of  the  Nicene  Council, 
since  in  the  very  first  passage  which  you  have  quoted,  it  is  slated 
that  its  adversaries  were  "  condemned  by  all,"  and  that  their  mur- 
murs against  its  decrees  resembled  tiiosi;  of  the  unbelieving  Jews 
Somewhat  further  on  he  says  :  "  How  is  it  possible,  that  they 


176  ST  ATHANASIUS. 

should  not  be  regarded  as  impious,  if  they  even  entertain  the 
thought  of  contradicting  so  great  and  so  (Ecumenical  a  Council  ? 
Are  they  not  to  be  esteemed  as  outlaws,  if  they  blush  not  ma- 
lignantly to  assail  those  decrees  justly  passed  against  the  Arian 
heresy  ?""  The  truth  of  the  dogma  which  the  Fathers  defined 
is  powerfully  sustained  by  Athanasius,  by  numerous  testimo- 
nies of  Scripture  which  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ;  and  the 
adoption  of  the  term  "  consubstantial,"  as  expressive  of  this 
dogma,  is  vindicated,  because,  although  new,  and  not  found  in 
the  Scripture,  the  adoption  of  this  term  was  rendered  necessary 
by  the  artifices  of  the  Arians,  who  contrived  to  conceal  their 
heresy  under  other  forms  of  speech  more  strictly  scriptural. 
"  Therefore,"  says  Athanasius,  "  the  synod,  having  well  weigh- 
ed the  matter,  justly  declared  him  to  be  consubstantial,  with  a 
view  to  overtiirow  the  malice  of  the  heretics,  and  to  show  that 
he  was  difi'erent  from  creatures  :  and  immediately  after  the 
decree,  subjoined  :  '  The  Holy  Catholic  Church  anathematizes 
such  as  say  that  the  Son  of  God  came  into  existence,  or  was 
created,  or  is  cliangeable,  or  is  any  created  work,  or  came  forth 
from  a  difi'erent  substance.'  "t  T  know  not  what  stronger  evi- 
dence need  be  given,  that  the  Fathers  conceived  themselves  to 
be  the  organ  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  infallible  in  expounding 
the  Scripture  and  defining  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  and  that 
Athanasius  sustained  them  in  asserting  that  infallible  authority. 
"In  these  words,"  he  continues,  "  ^  that  he  is  from  the  Father ,'' 
and  ''  tJiat  heis  consubstantiar  the  Fathers  wished  peremptorily 
to  eliminate  the  subtleties,  that  the  Son  was  created,  or  made,  or 
was  changeable,  or  did  not  exist  before  he  was  born  in  the  flesh. 
For  whosoever  entertains  such  sentiments,  contradicts  the  sy- 
nod :  on  the  contrary,  whosoever  does  not  coincide  in  senti- 
ment with  Arius,  ought  necessarily  know  and  think  as  the  sy- 

*  *'  Qui  igitur  fieri  potest,  ut  non  scelerati  habendi  siiit,  si  tanto  et 
tarn  OEcunienico  Concilio  vel  contradicere  cogitent  ?  aut  non  pro  legi- 
rupis  existlinandi,  si  malignis  oculis  non  vereantur  a  decretis  illis  rite 
contra  Arianicani  lia^resim  factis  obtrectarc  !"  S.  Athanas.  do.  Syn.  Nic. 
p.  355.  Edit.  Basil,  an.  15G4. 

t     Ibidem,  p.  3G7. 


NICENK  SYMBOL.  177 

nod."*  Ashe  proceeds,  he  establislies  that  the  doctrine  whicli 
ihe  council  professed  was  that  of  the  Fathers  and  iUuslrious 
writers  of  llie  preceding  ages;  and  lie  lljus  addresses  the  Ari- 
ans,  with  holy  indignation,  as  modern  Jews  and  disciples  of 
Caiphas  :  *'  All  detest  you,  except  the  devil,  the  author  of 
your  revolt  from  Christ.  He  originally  insinuated  this  impiety 
into  your  hearts,  and  now  moves  you  to  censure  the  council  of 
the  worldjt  for  no  other  reason  than  because  in  that  council, 
doctrines  were  not  sanctioned  favourable  to  your  error,  but 
those  which  were  delivered  from  the  commencement  by  those 
who  themselves  were  eye  witnesses,  and  ministers  of  the 
Word.  For  the  faith  which  is  sanctioned  by  the  writings  and 
decrees  of  the  synod,  is  that  of  the  whole  Church."  In  this 
style  of  defence  is  seen  the  most  perfect  harmony  with  our 
doctrine  and  our  practice,  so  that  you  could  not  have  brought 
forward  a  witness  less  likely  to  sustain  you  in  the  imaginary 
*'  contrast"  you  have  laboured  to  establish.  Why  you  stated, 
so  emphatically,  from  Athanasius,  that  the  Fathers  were  con- 
strained to  express  in  clearer  words  the  divine  dogma,  I  can- 
not conceive,  except  it  were  your  intention  to  convey  the  idea, 
that  the  words  contain  an  argument  against  the  infallibility  of 
the  council,  which,  certainly,  they  do  not.  You  are  careful 
to  remind  us,  that  the  followers  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  and 
not  the  Church  historian  of  Ca?sarea,  are  spoken  of  by  the  saint, 
when  he  inveighs  against  the  Eusebians  ;  but  sulVer  me  also  to 
remind  you,  that  Eusebius  of  C^sarea  is  specially  stated  by 
him  to  have  rashly  erred,  and  conibatted  the  true  doctrine,  to 
which  he  afterwards  gave  a  tardy  and  unwilling  assent. :|: 

In  a  letter  concerning  the  councils  which  the  Arians  propos- 
ed to  hold  at  Kimini  and  Selcucia,  Athanasius  rejects  the  pro- 
ject, because  the  Council  of  Nice  had  already  determined  the 
controversy  which  it  was  their  design  to  re-open  ;  and  on  the 
authority  of  divine  Scripture,   and   the  constant  faith  of  the 

*      P.  :i4i7.  Atli.  (Je  Syn.  Nic. 

f     "  Nunc  vobis  aullior  est  ut  orbis  Icrrarum  concilium  vituperetii." 
P.  373. 
\     S.  Athanas.  de  isyn.  Nic.  p.  335. 


178  ST  ATIIAXASIUS. 

Church,  liad  anathematized  witli  an  irrevocable  decree,  the 
heresy  of  Ariiis.*  "  When  treating  of  faith"  he  observes,  *'  they 
did  not  write:  '  i7  appears  to  us:''  but,  '■the  Catholic  Church 
believes  in  this  way^^  and  immediately  the  confession  of  faith 
was  added,  that  they  might  show  that  it  was  not  a  new  opinion, 
but  Apostolic  doctrine ;  and  that  what  they  wrote  was  not 
their  invention,  but  the  teaching  of  the  Aposdes.  Now  what 
just  cause  have  they  {the  Avians)  for  holding  their  synods  ?  If 
any  new  heresy  has  arisen  subsequent  to  that  of  Arius,  let 
them  state  what  are  the  tenets,  and  who  are  the  authors  of  the 
sect ;  but  in  the  mean  time,  let  them  anathematize,  in  their 
writings,  all  heresies  prior  to  their  council,  and  amongst  the 
rest,  even  the  Arian  sect,  as  the  Fathers  of  Nice  did ;  so  that 
they  may  seem  to  have  some  plausible  reason  for  their  pro- 
ceedings. But  if  such  be  not  the  case,  and  they  can  allege 
nothing  of  the  kind,  but  speak  rather  because  they  are  infect- 
ed with  the  Arian  heresy,  and  having  been  condemned,  change 
their  form  daily  ;  what  use,  I  pray,  is  there  in  councils,  since 
the  Council  of  Nice  is  sufficient  to  prostrate  the  Arian  and 
other  heresies,  which  it  condemned  in  conformity  with  sound 
faith  ?t ....  In  vain,  therefore,  they  run  to  and  fro,  pretending 
that  they  are  asking  for  councils  on  account  of  the  faith,  since 
the  Divine  Scripture  is  more  powerful  than  all. "J  If  you  can 
infer,  from  this  passage,  that  this  illustrious  doctor  did  not  be- 
lieve in  the  infallible  authority  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  your 
powers  of  reasoning  are  of  a  different  nature  from  those  which 
have  fallen  to  my  lot.  He  objects  to  any  re-opening  of  the 
cause  on  which  that  council  had  pronounced  judgment,  and 
maintains  that  a  preliminary  measure  to  any  new  synod  must 
necessarily  be,  the  pronouncing  of  anathema  against  the  heresy 
which  it  anathematized.  In  adding,  that  the  Scripture  is  more 
powerful  than  all,  he  speaks  of  it  as  expounded  by  the  unerring 

*  Ea  causa  fuit  cur  universus  orbis  in  concilium  coiret,  ut  haeresis 
quae  suppullulaverat,  anathemate  perculeretur  :  quod  et  factum  est.  S. 
Athanas.  de  Synod.  Arimini  et  Seleuciae,  p.  477. 

f  Quum  Niccenum  Concilium  adversus  Arianam  coeterasque  hsereses 
satis  valeat,  quas  per  sanam  fidem  condemnavit."  Ibid.  X   Ibid. 


NICENE  COUNCIL.  17U 

aulliority  of  iliat  cMumcil,'  ami  opposes  it  to  the  nianv  discord- 
aiU  convenlicles  wliicli  the  Arians  held:  *'  I  supjjo.scd,"  says 
lie,  writing  to  Epictcliis,  bishop  of  Corinth,  *'  that  the  garrulity 
of  all  heretics  that  ever  existed,  was  silenced  by  the  Council  of 
Nice:  for  the  faith  which  there  was  delivered  by  tlie  Fathers, 
in  accordance  with  the  ISacred  ^>criplures,  and  whieh  was  con- 
firmed by  their  confessions,  appeared  to  me  well  calculated  and 
sulliciently  powerful  to  overthrow  all  impiety,  and  to  establish 
that  piety  and  faith  which  are  in  Christ.  For  this  reason,  in  the 
different  councils  which  were  celebrated  throughout  Gaul,  and 
Spain,  and  at  Rome,  all  who  were  in  that  assembly  unanimous- 
ly, and    UNDER    TliK   IMPULSE  OF  THE  ONE    SPIRIT,t    SlfUclv  with 

anathema  tliose  who  shun  liie  light,  who  even  at  present  con- 
tinue to  conceal  themselves,  and  cherish  the  opinions  of  Arius, 
namely,  Auxentius  of  Mdan,  Ursacius,  Valens  and  Gains 
of  Pannonia,  because  these  usurped  for  their  conventicles  the 
names  of  synods,  whereas  no  synod  should  be  regarded  in  the 
Catholic  Church  except  that  of  Nice  alone,|  which  should  be 
considered  as  the  trophy  of  all  heresies,  and  especially  of  that 
of  Arius  :  nor  is  this  wonderful,  since  this  synod  was  assem- 
bled for  the  condemnation  of  that  heresy  particularly.  "NVilh 
what  audacity,  then,  do  liiey  institute  disputes  and  questions, 
after  the  authority  of  so  great  a  council  ?§"  Athanasius  main- 
tains, that  there  can  be  no  synod  in  the  Catholic  Church  but 
that  of  Nice, — none,  tiiat  does  not  harmonize  with  it  in  faith, 
as  those  of  Gaul,  Spain  and  Home,  which  issued  anathemas 
against  its  adversaries,  being  impelled  by  the  same  Spirit.  lie 
says  elsewhere,  that  *♦  it  is  not  lawful  to  seek  any  thing  beyond 
the  definition  of  the  Nicene  Council. "i|     "  If  they  believed  pro- 

•  *'  Verbum  antom  illud  Domini  per  CEcumcnicam  Nicece  Synoduni 
in  Kternum  mane."     Ad  Kpiscopos  in  Africa,  p.  520. 

t     Unius  SpirituH  incilalu."     Ad  Kpict.  p.  73. 

t  "  Quuri)  nulla  sit  in  Catlmlica  Ikclcsia  Synodus  cxisliinanda  prn'- 
icr  unicain  Nico'natn,  (\iiw.  oinniiiin  liuTcscon  proflifjataruni,  ac  in  j>ri- 
niis  AriantP  trnphnMini  lialx-nda  est."     Ibidem. 

§  **  Q'la  i^ritiir  nudacia  fit,  ut  post  lanli  concilii  autoritatfin,  discrp- 
tationcs  aut  qun'stioncH  inntituant  r" — Ad  Kpictctuni,  pp.  7'A,  71. 

II  "  Ncfa.s  rst  quicqiiain  ultra  Nica;num  Concilium  rcquirer«  ." — Ad 
Antiocli.     r.  '■7. 


180  ST  ATHANASIUS. 

perly,  they  would  be  contented  with  the  Nicene  faith,  promul- 
gated by  a  council  of  the  entire  world."*  Yet  you  say,  that  he 
or  the  other  Fathers  of  his  age,  did  not  attribute  any  infallibility 
to  it,  and  did  not  regard  its  decrees  of  faith  as  made  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit ! 

You  conclude  your  chapter  with  an  imaginary  contrast  be- 
tween our  doctrine  and  that  of  Athanasius.  Allow  me  to  show 
its  harmony.  He  maintains,  that  the  Nicene  Council's  ex- 
position of  Scripture,  and  its  declaration  of  Apostolic  tradi- 
tion, and  of  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  must  be  embra- 
ced ;  that  its  judgment  must  not  be  re-examined ; — that  its  ana- 
themas must  be  repeated  by  all  the  children  of  faith ; — that 
the  very  terms  which  it  consecrates  to  express  divine  doc- 
trines must  be  adopted,  even  though  they  be  not  found  in 
Scripture.  All  this  we  hold.  We  claim  for  an  QEcumenical 
Council  this  authority  in  matters  of  faith,  and  no  more :  and 
we  exhort  you,  as  Athanasius  exhorted  those  whom  he  ad- 
dressed, to  admit  the  same  authority,  and  to  admire  tlie  zeal  of 
every  council,  truly  (Ecumenical,  in  the  maintenance  of  divine 
truth,  and  its  diligence  in  unfolding  the  ancient  tenets. t  You 
have  some  illustrious  examples  in  your  own  communion. 
The  celebrated  defender  of  the  Nicene  faith.  Bishop  Bull  of 
the  English  establishment,  applied  to  the  Council  of  Nice  the 
promise  of  Christ  to  be  with  the  apostolic  ministry  till  the 
consummation  of  the  world,  and  ascribed  to  its  decisions  all 
the  weight  which  we  are  called  upon  to  recognise  in  them  : 
"If,"  says  he,  "in  a  question  of  so  vast  importance  as  this, 
we  can  imagine  that  all  tlie  governors  of  the  Church  could  fall 
into  error  so  prodigiously,  and  deceive  the  people  under  them, 
how  shall  we  be  able  to  vindicate  the  veracity  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  promising  to  be  with  his  Apostles,  and  in  them  with  their 
successors  to  the  end  of  the  world  ?  A  promise  whicli  could 
not  be  true,  seeing  the  Apostles  were  not  to  live  so  long,  unless 
their  successors  be  here  comprehended  in  the  persons  of  the 

*     Contra  Arianos  oral.  1.  p.  109. 

t     See  end  of  letter  de  Syn.  NicKn.  p.  37G.  £d.  Bas. 


ANGLICAN   DIVINES.  181 

Aposiles  themselves  :* — Saywell,  anollier  tiivine  of  the  Cliuroli 
of  England,  is  still  more  explicit :  '*  We  know  well,"  says  this 
writer,  *' that  the  Apostle  foretold  that  heresies  must  come — 
'  men  will  arise  speaking  perverse  things.'  'I'hat  may  happen 
in  many  councils  :  but  nothing  of  the  kind  can  be  said  of 
councils  truly  Ecumenical,  received  and  approved  of  by  the 
Catholic  Church.  Nor  is  there  any  ground  for  objecting 
Scripture,  and  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  to  the  tradition  of  an 
(Ecumenical  Council,  generally  received  and  approved  of,  for 
they  teach  the  same,  and  harmoniously  announce  the  Evangeli- 
cal faiih  :  nor  is  the  testimony  of  the  pastors  spread  throughout 
the  world  difl'erent  from  that  which  they  give  when  gathered 
together  in  councils  tiiat  are  truly  free.  The  same  truth  is 
contained  in  traililion,  and  is  contained  in  (Ecumenical  (Coun- 
cils.— If  the  meaning  cf  the  Scripture  and  faith  of  tlie  Church 
is  matter  of  controversy,  the  pastors,  being  enlightened  for  this 
purpose  by  the  illustration  of  the  divine  Spirit,  bear  testimony 
to  the  doctrine  which  has  been  transmitted,  and  to  its  true 
meaning."! 

To  return  from  this  digression,  naturally  suggested  by  the 
defence  of  the  Xicene  faith,  for  which  Bishop  liuU  obtained  sucli 
deserved  celebrity,  it  is  certain  that  Athanasius  was  still  more 
unequivocal  in  his  maintenance  of  the  authority  of  the  council. 
His  regard  for  the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  See  will  be  seen 
from  his  own  statements  of  the  efforts  made  against  him  at 
Rome.  He  relates  that  a  synod,  which  had  assembled  at 
Alexandria,  consisting  of  the  bishops  of  Egypt,  Thebais, 
Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  addressed  a  letter  to  all  the  bishops  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  to  repel  the  calumnies  with  which  he 
was  loaded.  Towards  the  end  of  it  tliey  observe  that  the 
Eusebians  excited  the  Arians,  though  anathematized  by  the 
whole  (Jhurch,  and  that  they  were  incessant  in  their  efforts  to 
disseminate  the  heresy  by  every  artifice.  ♦•  Tiiey  cast  the 
Church    into    schism  ;    they   write    in    commendation    of   the 

•     See  Life  of  I)r  John  Uull,  p.  2^0.   Ed.  Oxiord,  \SUk 
t     Saywell  in  prcef.  ad  Edit.  Epist.  Launoii,  Canlabrigin^,  an.  1089. 
Q 


182  ST  ATHANASIUS. 

heresy,  ami  vituperate  the  Church,  as  you  may  discover  from 
their  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  the  Romans,  and  perhaps  to  your- 
selves."* Athanasius,  who  copies  this  letter  into  his  Second 
Apology,  subjoins: — "The  Egyptians,  indeed,  wrote  thus  to 
all,  and  to  the  Roman  Bishop  Julius.  Moreover,  even  the 
Eusebians  sent  letters  to  Julius,  and,  in  order  to  frighten  us, 
called  for  a  synod,  and  referred  the  judgment  of  the  causet  to 
Julius  himself,  should  he  be  pleased  to  undertake  it.  "When, 
therefore,  we  had  reached  Rome,  Julius  immediately  wrote  to 
the  Eusebians,  by  two  of  his  priests,  Elpidius  and  Philoxenus  : 
but  they,  when  they  had  heard  of  our  presence  at  Rome,  were 
greatly  troubled,  because,  contrary  to  their  expectation,  I  had 
gone  to  Rome.t  Having  declined,  therefore,  to  undertake  the 
journey,  they  devised  sundry  idle  and  vain  pretences  to  excuse 
themselves,  whilst,  in  reality,  they  wexe  kept  back  by  great 
fear,  lest  they  should  be  convicted  of  the  same  crimes  which 
Valens  and  Ursacius  had  confessed. §  Afterwards  the  priest, 
Viton,  brought  more  than  fifty  bishops  to  the  council,  where 
our  defence  was  admitted,  and  we  were  judged  worthy  of  the 
communion,  and  agape, !|  and  great  indignation  was  felt  against 
the  Eusebians,  to  whom  they  requested  Julius  to  reply,  as  he 
had  received  letters  from  them.  Julius  accordingly  wrote,  and 
sent  the  letter  by  Count  Gabianus." 

You  pause,  after  this  quotation,  to  direct  our  attention  to 
some  points  which  you  conceive  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Primacy.     The  use  of  the  Latin  term  ^' jusse- 

*    Apol.  2,  p.  389. 

t  "  Synodum  jusserunt  convocari,  et  ipsi  Julio,  si  vellet,  arbitrium 
causae  detulerunt."     The  sequel  will  sustain  the  translation. 

X     "  Quod  contra  spem  eorum  me  Roniam  contulissem." 

§  These  heretical  bishops  had  acknowledged  their  unjust  persecution 
of  Athanasius,  and  sought  from  Julius  reconciliation  with  the  Church. 
They  say  tliat  they  embrace  the  communion  of  Athanasius,  encouraged 
by  the  pardon  which  the  Pope  had  vouchsafed  to  grant  them  for  their 
past  unjust  hostility :  ''  maxime  quia  tua  in  Deum  pietas  veniam, 
secundum  genuinam  suam  probitatem,  nostro  errori  impertiri  dignata 
est."     See  the  document  recorded  by  Athanasius.  Apol.  2,  p.  413. 

II     The  friendly  ban(]uet  of  Christian  community  and  charity. 


RKFERENCE  TO  JILIL'S.  183 

rimt,''  Nviiii'li  you  have  iranslalcd  "  ordered,"  alVords  the  oc- 
casion of  your  lirst  remark,  and  the  term  ♦' arbitrium,"  ren- 
dered by  you  *' arbitration,"  is  llie  subject  also  of  observation. 
"  The  Eusebians,"  you  say,  as  giving  the  meaning  of  the  text 
of  Athanasius,  "  sent  letters  to  Julius,  and  in  order  to  frighten 
us,  ordered  a  council  to  he  called,  and  referred  the  arbitration 
of  the  case  to  Julius  himself  if  he  was  willing.''^  I  shall  not 
trouble  the  reader  with  any  literary  disquisition  on  the  force 
of  these  terms,  but  refer  him  to  the  note  ;*  and  merely  rest  on 
tlie  facts  as  attested  by  Athanasius,  and  by  the  early  Church 
historians,  Theodore!,  Socrates,  and  Sozomen.  It  is  manifest 
that  the  F^use'jians  could  give  no  order  to  Julius,  who  certainly 
was  not  subject  to  their  authority,  and  that  they  did  not  even 
seriour^ly  wish  the  council  to  be  held.  The  facts  are  these: 
Athanasius,  in  the  year  33.5,  whilst  Conslunline  was  still  alive, 
had  been  condemned  and  deposed  by  a  council  in  Tyre,  at 
which  Flacillus,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  presided.  Constantine 
l)anished  him,  under  the  influence  of  the  Eusebians,  but  towards 
his  death  he  relented,  and  his  sons,  after  his  demise,  in  com- 
pliance with  his  wishes,  permitted  Athanasius  to  return. — 
The  Eusebians,  mortified  at  his  restoration,  made  every  eftbrt 
for  his  ruin,  sent  legates  to  Constance  and  Constans,  and  wrote 
against  him  to  Julius,  the  Roman  Pontiflf.  Without  awaiting  any 
act  of  the  emperors  or  PontifT,  they  held  a  council  at  Antioch 
in  341,  and  regarding  the  restoration  of  Athanasius  as  irregu- 
lar, chose  Gregory  of  Cappadocia,  an  Arian,  to  be  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  and  sent  him  with  the  prefect  Philagrius,  and  a 
military  escort,  to  take  possession  of  the  Sec.  They  had  pre- 
viously sent  Martirius  and  Ilesychius,  two  deacons,  as  depu- 
ties to  Rome,  who  meeting  there  the  deputies  of  Athana- 
sius, and  failing  to  sustain  the  cliarges,  found  themselves  un- 

'  "JuRserunt,"  somctimcH  means  "ordered,"  hut  it  admits  great 
latitude  of  signification:  **  Dionysium  veUm  salvere  jubeas ;"  says 
Cicero  :  which  may  be  translated  :  •*  Please  present  my  compliments  to 
Dionysius."  .■irlntriuvi ,  sometimes  means  supreme  power  :  "  Arl)ilriuni 
urbis  Romulus  habot :' — Odd.  ''  Koinuhis  has  the  government  of  lh<- 
city.'"     In  the  text,  il  means  ^^ judgment." 


184  ST  ATHANASIUS. 

der  the  necessity  of  calling  for  a  trial,*  in  order  not  utterly  to 
abandon  their  cause.  Julius  accordingly  called  a  council,  in 
order  to  have  a  full  investigation.  In  the  mean  time  Athana- 
sius  arrived  at  Rome,  having  fled  from  the  violence  of  the  in- 
truder Gregory  and  his  partisans.  The  Pontiff  sent  legates  to 
summon  his  accusers,  and  determined  to  institute  inquiry  into 
the  crimes  which  they,  or  their  partisans,  had  committed,  and 
to  punish  them  accordingly.t  'i'hey  detained  the  messen- 
gers, and  in  the  end  wrote  an  offensive  letter,  in  which,  how- 
ever, they  admitted  "  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Roman  Church 
as  avowed  by  all,  as  having  been  from  the  commencement  the 
school  of  the  Apostles  and  the  metropolis  of  piety, "J  but  they 
complained  of  the  intended  re-opening  of  the  cause  of  Athana- 
sius  in  a  new  council.  Notwithstanding  their  opposition,  Ju- 
lius proceeded  to  examine  the  cause  of  Athanasius  in  a  coun- 
cil consisting  of  fifty  prelates.  The  acts  of  the  Council  of 
Tyre,  and  of  the  committee  of  bishops  who  were  appointed  to 
examine  the  facts  at  Mareotis,  where  they  were  said  to  have 
occurred,  were  submitted,  and  judged  to  be  irregular  and  un- 
just: and  Athanasius  was  acquitted  by  the  unanimous  judg- 
ment of  the  Pope  and  his  colleagues.  They  requested  Julius 
to  communicate  by  letter  the  result  of  their  investigation,  which 
he  accordingly  did  in  the  admirable  letter  which  has  been  pre- 
served by  Athanasius,  and  which  unites  mild  persuasion  with 
authoritative  judgment. 

Without  cavilling  on  words,  the  complaint  made  by  the  Euse- 
bians  in  their  letter  of  the  re-opening  of  the  cause  in  a  new 
council,  shows  that  they  had  not  ordered,  or  seriously  asked 

*  "  Concilium  indici  postularunt,  litterasque  et  ad  Eusebianos,  et 
Athanasium  Alexandriam,  quibus  convocarentur  mitti,  ut  coram  omni- 
bus justo  judicio  de  causa  cognosci  posset :  turn  enim  se  de  Athanasio 
probaturos  esse,  quod  jam  nequirent. — Epist.  Julii,  p.  391. 

t  "  Certe  fratres  nostri  Romae  anno  superiori  infensi  prioribus  eorum 
factis,quum  nondum  scelera  ista  accesserant,  pro  ultione  sumenda  con- 
cilium indici,  celebrariquevoluerunt."—S.Athanas.  ad  Orthodox.  P.  338. 

t  <>«/>6/v  ^tiv  yiip  7ra.7i  (^iKoToixidLV  tvv  pa/udieev  ejtKA«(7/stK  iv  Toi{  ypot/u.- 
f/.a.!riY,  Ufxcxoycvv,  &>?  i7ro<^oKa)V  (ppcvri^nptov,  kxi  »u(TiQti{i.i  (JLnipovroKiy 
*?  ^?X^^  yfyivvufAivuv.     Sozomen.  1.  3.  Hist.  Eccl.  c.  viii. 


Jl'DGMENT  OF  JLLll  .-.  185 

lor  a  council,  and  that  ihe  demand  made  by  llieir  deputies  was 
the  last  subterfuge,  when  they  liad  failed  to  substanliale  iheir 
charges  in  the  less  solemn  discussion  with  the  deputies  of  Atha- 
nasius.*  It  is  for  this  reason  tliat  they  expressed  themselves 
as  willing  to  abide  by  the  judgment  of  Julius,  if  lie  should 
please  to  undertake  the  investigation.  They  hoped  that  he 
would  not ;  and  when  their  olfer  was  accepted,  those  who  had 
sent  them  shrunk  from  the  trial,  and  sought  by  every  frivolous 
pretence  to  excuse  their  default.  No  order  then  was  given  by 
them  for  the  holding  of  the  council,  and  no  order  was  given  by 
the  council  to  Julius.  It  was  tiis  decision ;  for  to  him  the 
cause  had  been  referred,  and  consequently  those  whom  he  iiad 
voluntarily  associated  with  him  in  its  cognizance,  to  give  it  a 
character  of  greater  equity  and  solemnity,  could  not  give  him 
any  command  as  to  the  procedure  which  he  should  adopt. 
They  might  counsel  and  suggest,  but  they  could  not  order.  It 
is  spoken  of  as  Jns  judgment  by  ilie  council  subsequently  held 
at  Sardica.  You  say,  that  the  Arians  "  referred  the  cause  to 
the  arbitrement  of  Julius,  if  he  was  willing,"  and  offered  to 
make  him  "  arbitrator."  I  pity  the  cause  whose  advocate  is 
obliged  to  avail  himself  of  the  ambiguity  of  a  term  or  phrase. 
It  is  expressly  called  a  judgment  by  the  council  just  referred 
to,  and  it  has  all  the  qualities  that  constitute  a  real  exercise  of 
judicial  authority.  Complaints  had  been  lodged  with  Juliu* 
against  Athanasius,  as  with  a  judge  and  superior;  and  tlie  ex- 
ercise of  his  authority  had  been  called  for,  before  the  alleged 
proposal  for  an  arbittation  :  afterwards,  the  cause  proceeded 
entirely  against  the  will  of  the  party  in  whose  name  the  inves- 
tigation had  been  demanded.  This  is  manifestly  the  exercise 
of  a  supreme  and  independent  judicial  power,  not  derived  from 
the  voluntary  act  of  the  parties  conrcrned.  You  assert  that 
Julius  claims  in  his  letter  no  superior  rights,  and  pronounces 
no  official  judgment.  I  beg  you  to  observe,  that  he  claims, 
distinctly,  the  right  of  summoning  all  the  parlies  to  his   tri- 

"  Id  cniin  eoruin  Icgati,  quuni  so   vinci  aiumadvcrlerent,  i>ottuIa- 
rnnt." — Athanas.  a<l  vitain  sol.  agento*.  p.  440. 


186  ST  ATHANASIUS. 

buiial.  At  the  head  of  the  accusers  was  Fiacillus,  patriarch  of 
Antiocli: — the  accused  Athanasius  was  the  patriarch  of  Al- 
exandria, the  highest  dignitary  after  the  Roman  Bishop;  and 
yet  all  were  embraced  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pontiff. 
As  a  proof  of  the  innocence  of  Athanasius,  Julius  alleges 
that  he  freely  presented  himself  in  Rome,  and  a  year  and  a- 
half  awaited  the  arrival  of  his  accusers.  He  adds,  that  "  by 
his  presence,  he  put  them  all  to  shame,  for  he  would  not  have 
presented  himself  for  trial,  were  he  not  confident  of  his  in- 
nocence, nor  would  he  have  spontaneously  appeared,  but  call- 
ed to  trial  by  our  letters,  as  we  summoned  you  in  writing."* 
After  this,  can  you  doubt  that  the  judgment  was  official,  and 
proceeded  from  a  recognised  tribunal?  The  details  of  the 
proceedings,  as  given  in  that  letter,  are  such  as  constitute  a 
trial.  The  accusations  had  been  communicated  in  letters  writ- 
ten by  Eusebius  and  his  adherents  against  Athanasius ;  the 
crimes  were  stated  for  which  he  had  been  condemned  at  Tyre, 
on  the  report  made  by  a  committee  of  bishops  which  sat  at 
Mareotis ;  the  records  of  that  trial  were  presented  by  Marty- 
rius  and  Hesychius  on  the  part  of  the  accusers ;  the  leading 
accusers  were  absent  by  default;  Athanasius  was  heard  in  his 
defence ;  a  number  of  witnesses  were  examined,  and  the 
sentence  of  acquittal  was  pronounced  on  the  double  ground  of 
irregularity  in  the  proceedings,  and  falsehood  in  the  accusa- 
tions. At  Mareotis  the  liberty  of  defence  had  been  denied  to 
Athanasius,  and  he  and  his  witnesses  had  been  excluded, 
whilst  his  accuser  alone  was  heard :  "  This  we  know,"  says 
the  Pontiff,  "  not  merely  from  his  statement,  but  from  the  re- 
cords of  the  acts  brought  by  Martyrius  and  Hesychius  ;  for  on 
reading  them,  we  found  that  Ischyras  his  accuser  was  present, 
but  that  Macarius  and  Athanasius  were  not  present,  and  that 
the  priests  of  Athanasius  were  not  admitted,  though  they  ear- 
nestly demanded  it.     Dearly  beloved,  if  indeed  that  trial  were 

*  "  Suaque  prajsentia  pudefecit  omnec  :  non  enim  judicio  stetisset, 
nisi  sui  fiduciam  habuisset,  neque  sponte,  sed  litteris  nostris  ad  judicium 
vocatus  comparuisset,  quemadmodum  vos  per  litteras  citavimus." — Julii, 
Ep.  apud.  Athanas.  Ap.2,  p.  396. 


JUDICIAL  FORMS.  187 

carried  on  \viili  siiiccriiy,  it  was  necessary  llial  not  only  ihe 
accuser  but  the  accused  should  be  present."*  You  see,  that 
llie  Pope  had  some  idea  of  the  regular  forms  of  trial.  He  felt, 
likewise,  that  in  virtue  of  his  ofllce,  he  could  annul  this  irregu- 
lar sentence,  as  he  could,  if  Athanasius  had  been  guilty,  liave 
condemned  him.  The  merits  of  the  case  had  been  canvassed, 
no  less  than  the  mode  of  proceeding.  It  was  proved  from  the 
very  records  of  the  former  trial,  that  the  chief  accuser,  Ischy- 
ras,  was  convicted  of  perjury  by  his  own  witnesses.  "  Since, 
then,"  says  Julius,  ♦'  these  things  were  brought  forward,  and 
so  many  witnesses  appeared  in  behalf  of  Athanasius,  and  he 
made  so  just  a  defence — what  was  it  becoming  us  to  do? — Was 
it  not  our  duty  to  proceed  according  to  the  hZcclesiastical  ca- 
non ?  Sliould  we  not  therefore  abstain  from  condemninsT  the 
man,  and  rather  admit,  and  regard  him  as  a  bishop,  as  in  truth 
he  is  ?"t  He  complains  severely  of  their  proceedings  whilst 
the  cause  was  pending  before  his  tribunal — the  Eusebians  hav- 
ing violently  intruded  Gregory  into  the  See  of  Alexandria 
without  awaiting  the  decision  :  "  For  in  the  first  place,"  con- 
tinues the  Pontiff,  *'  to  speak  candidly,  it  was  not  right  that, 
when  we  had  issued  letters  for  the  celebration  of  a  synod,  any 
one  should  anticipate  the  judgment  of  the  synod." — lie  also 
intimates  tiiat  the  Eusebians  themselves  would  have  been  put 
on  trial,  had  they  appeared  ;  and  states  distinctly,  that  accusa- 
tions had  been  formally  presented  against  them,  and  accuses 
them  of  contumacy  for  neglecting  to  appear  to  stand  their  trial. J 
I  believe  these  extracts  will  satisfy  most  readers,  that,  at  that 
(;arly  period  of  the  Church,  the  Hishoj)  of  Home  exercised  real 
jurisdiction  in  the  most  important  causes,  in  whatever  part  of  the 
world  the  parties  resided,  or  whatever  rank  they  occupied  in 

•  "  Oportcbat  auteni,  dileclissinii,  siquidem  sincerilcr  illud  judicium 
agcbatur,non  »(»luin  accusatorem,  sed  ct  reuin  pra'sentcm  sisti." — I'.  31>1. 

t  **  An  non  quod  Ecclesiaalici  canonis  est?  hotnincinquc  proinde  non 
condemnaremuB,  sed  potius  rccipcreinua  ?" — P.  305. 

I  "  Alacrius  a  vobia  el  sine  rccusalionc  occurrendum  fuit,  nc  qui 
iiactenus  infamia  istorum  sccleruni  laborant,  contumacia  non  conipa- 
rendi  in  judicio,  hbcllos  contra  sc  dales,  vidcantur  rcfcllcre  non  potu- 
isse.  " — Ibid 


188  ST  ATIIAXASIUS. 

the  hierarchy.  You  acknowledge  that  the  close  of  the  letter 
indicates  some  advancement  towards  the  Primacy  ;  but  had  you 
read  the  letter  wiihout  undue  bias,  you  would  have  found  the 
exercise  of  that  high  authority  marked  in  almost  every  line. 
Julius,  indeed,  complains  that  the  Ecclesiastical  canon  has  been 
violated  ;  but  he  speaks  plainly,  as  the  authoritative  guardian 
of  the  canons.  To  him,  as  such,  and  as  the  divinely  constituted 
ruler  of  the  whole  Church,  not  only  Athanasius  and  Marcellus, 
"  but  also  many  other  bishops  from  Thrace,  Caelosyria,  Phoe- 
nicia, Palestine,"*  came  complaining  of  the  wrongs  which 
they  had  endured,  and  which  had  been  inflicted  on  their  re- 
spective churches.  The  plea  that  the  Eusebians  offered  for  filling 
the  Sees  of  Athanasius  and  Marcellus,  could  not  be  put  forward 
to  palliate  the  violence  by  which  these  were  driven  away  from 
their  Sees. — "Suppose,"  says  Julius,  "that  Athanasius  and 
Marcellus,  as  you  write,  were  removed  from  their  Sees ; — what 
can  you  say  of  the  others,  who,  as  I  have  said,  have  come 
hither  from  various  places,  both  priests  and  bishops  ? — for  they 
also  affirm  that  they  have  been  driven  away,  and  that  they  have 
suffered  similar  outrages.  O!  beloved.  Ecclesiastical  trials  are 
no  longer  conducted  in  conformity  with  the  Gospel,  but  with  a 
view  to  exile  or  death.  If,  as  you  say,  they  were  absolutely 
guilty,  the  trial  should  have  been  carried  on  according  to  the 
canon,  and  not  in  that  way.  You  should  have  first  written  to 
us  all,  that  so  what  is  just  might  be  decreed  by  all.  For  they 
who  suffered  these  things  were  bishops,  and  not  of  an  ordinary 
Church,  but  of  one  which  the  Apostles  themselves  had  by  their 
labour  instructed  in  the  faith.  Why  then  have  you  neglected 
to  write  to  us  any  thing,  especially  concerning  the  city  of  Alex- 
andria ?  do  you  not  know  that  it  is  the  custom  to  write  first  to 
us,  that  what  is  just  may  be  hence  determined?  Wherefore, 
if  suspicion  of  that  kind  had  fallen  on  the  bishop  tiiere,  it  should 
have  been  reported  to  our  Church.  Now,  after  having  done 
as  they  pleased,  without  informing  us  at  all,  they  wish  us  to 
approve  of  their  sentence  of  condemnation,  in  which  we  had 

*    P.  397. 


ORDER  OF   rUOCEEDlNG.  189 

no  share.  Such  are  nol  llie  ordinances  of  Paul — sucli  is  not 
the  teacliing  of  tlie  Fathers — but  lliis  is  arrogance  and  innova- 
tion. I  beseech  you,  liear  me  willingly  :  1  write  for  the  gene- 
ral advantage.  I  intimate  to  you  wliat  we  have  learned  from 
the  blessed  Apostle  Peter;  nor  would  I  write  things  which  I 
am  persuaded  you  know  already,  had  not  the  transactions  filled 
us  with  affliction." — 

All  this  does  not  convince  you  tliat  Julius  exercised  the  pre- 
rogatives of  Chief  IJishop.  You  observe,  "  here  we  see  plainly 
a  claim  set  up  for  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  be  first  informed  of 
what  is  amiss,  that  justice  may  be  done:"  but  you  add,  that  he 
contemj)lales  the  action  of  a  council ; — but  of  what  council  ?  Is 
it  not  of  such  of  his  colleagues  as  he  might  gather  around  him, 
to  aid  him  to  form  a  just  and  equitable  judgment  ?  Socrates,  the 
Greek  historian,  explaining  this  claim,  says,  that  "the  Eccle- 
siastical canon  forbids  the  churches  to  take  any  measures  with- 
out the  sanction  of  the  Roman  IJishop.*  *'  This  giving  in- 
formation to  the  Church  of  Rome  is,"  you  say,  "  put  on  the 
score  of  custom,  and  not  one  word  is  to  be  found  that  looks  like 
a  claim  by  divine  right."  Custom  is,  indeed,  alleged;  the 
canons  of  the  Church  are  likewise  referred  to ;  but  that  custom 
and  those  canons  were  conformable  to  the  ordinances  of  l*aul, 
and  to  the  teaching  of  Peter,  as  the  holy  Pontill'  is  careful  to 
observe.  *'  There  is  here,"  you  say,  "  no  jiersonal  authority 
for  Julius  himself."  It  was  to  Julius  liimself,  " ./; Jio  2/;5i," 
the  reference  was  made :  the  sanction  of  the  Roman  Bishop,  ac- 
cording to  Socrates,  was  required.  Wjien,  then,  Julius  speaks 
in  the  plural  number,  he  modestly  unites  with  himself  his  col- 
leagues whom  he  was  wont  to  associate  with  him  in  judgment. 

Tiie  splendid  evidence  of  the  Primacy,  aflbrded  by  these 
documents,  is  no  wise  affected  by  the  sequel  of  the  history  of 
Athanasius.  You  say  that  the  Council  of  Rome  and  the  letter 
of  Julius  *♦  produced  no  result,"  because  the  Council  of  Sardica 
was  subsequently  summoned  by  the  emperors,  Constantius  and 

"  m  inxxwy/ar/jiK  na'rsrtc  «iAH/'e»T6c,  /uji  Jtlr  ^$1^^  -^rae/uny  t«  it/*'. 
Kiirn  pw/xifc  Kxtoti^tit  Tctc  imnKtivUt. — Socrates,  1.  1.  Eccl.  HiBt.  c.  17. 


190  ST  ATHANASIUS. 

Coiistans,  on  the  same  case.  But  the  circumstances  must  be 
taken  into  consideration.  Gregory,  the  intruded  Arian,  was  in 
actual  possession  of  the  See  of  Alexandria :  the  Eusebian  fac- 
tion were  powerful  at  the  court  of  Constantius,  and  used  every 
effort  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  decree  of  Julius.  To 
give  it  effect,  it  was  necessary  that  the  civil  power  should 
concur,  and  that  concurrence  could  not  be  hoped  for,  unless 
Constantius  were  undeceived.  It  was  with  this  view  that 
Julius  urged  the  Catholic  emperor  Constans  to  prevail  on 
Constantius,  his  Arian  brother,  to  hold  a  council  of  the  Eastern 
and  Western  bishops,  that  the  facts  of  the  case  might  be  placed 
in  a  true  light,  and  Athanasius  put  in  possession  of  his  See. 
Sozomen  assures  us  of  it,*  and  Socrates  tells  us  that  the  Euse- 
bians  ascribed  to  Julius  the  holding  of  the  Sardican  Council.t 
Athanasius  tells  us,  "that  it  was  summoned  lest  those  who 
had  been  wrongfully  treated  should  suffer  further  injury,  or  the 
aggressors  should  continue  to  inflict  outrages. "± 

In  enumerating  the  bishops  who  assembled  in  this  council, 
you  begin  by  Spain,  although  the  inscription  of  the  council 
is :  "  The  Sacred  Synod  through  the  grace  of  God  assembled 
at  Sardica  from  Rome,  Spain,  Gaul,"  &c.§  As  you  pass  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end,  observing,  however,  that  mention  was 
made  by  the  Fathers  "  of  the  fruitless  effort  of  Julius  and  his 
brethren  in  the  Council  of  Rome"  to  terminate  the  troubles,  it 
may  be  allowed  me  to  give  the  precise  words  that  have  reference 
to  it.  The  Fathers  observe  that  the  accusers  of  Athanasius, 
though  present  at  Sardica,  "  did  not  dare  appear  in  the  council 
of  the  holy  bishops  :  from  which  circumstance  the  justice  of 
the  judgment  of  our  brother  and  fellow  bishop  Julius  most 
clearly  appeared,  who  passed  sentence  not  with  rashness,  but 

*     Sozomen,  1.  iii.  Hist,  c  x. 

i     Socrates,  1.  ii.  Hist.  c.  xx. 

t     Athan.  ad  Solit.  Vitam  Agentes,  p.  442. 

§  Col.  Cone.  Hard.  Tom.  T.  Col  65G.  This  would  scarcely  be  worth 
notice,  did  it  not  seem  designedly  done,  as  elsewhere  the  order  observed 
by  Eusebius,  "  Rome  and  Alexandria,"  is  reversed.  These  are  trifles, 
but  look  badly. 


COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA.  191 

after  malme  clclibcraiion."  Here  you  peri'eive  ilial  ihe  sen- 
lencc  is  wholly  allribuled  to  him,  so  that  hence  you  may  solve 
for  yourself  those  dilKcullies  which  you  have  found  in  expres- 
sions that  seem  more  directly  to  refer  to  the  council  in  whicli 
he  presided.  In  tiie  letter  of  the  Fathers  of  tSardica,  to  the 
Eg)'plian  and  African  bishops,  they  mention  the  accusations 
preferred  to  Julius,  Bishop  of  the  Roman  Church,  against 
Athanasius, — liie  letters  written  to  him  by  bishops  of  various 
places  in  his  defence, — tlie  summons  issued  to  the  Eusebians  to 
appear,  and  their  shrinkiuo-  Irom  the  trial:  whence  they  infer 
their  guilt, — "  because  being  summoned  by  our  beloved  fellow 
minister  Julius,  they  did  not  present  themselves  for  trial."* 
It  is  towards  the  end  of  this  second  letter  that  the  j)assage  is 
found  which  you  have  quoted  as  the  conclusion  of  the  pre- 
ceding one.  Your  inferences  from  these  documents  are  totally 
incorrect.  The  innocence  of  Athanasius  was  fully  established 
by  the  judgment  of  Julius ;  but  the  violence  of  his  enemies 
was  not  subdued,  and  the  intruder,  who  was  sustained  by  the 
civil  power,  was  not  ejected.  Hence  the  Fathers  of  this 
council,  in  their  tirst  letter,  implore  the  emperors  not  to  suffer 
the  public  olFicers  to  pass  sentence  on  clergymen,  or  to  molest 
the  brethren,  but  to  leave  every  one  at  liberty  to  follow  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  faith,  without  being  subject  to  the 
violence  of  persecution,  'i'hey  make  known  to  him,  likewise, 
that  Gregory,  the  intruder  into  the  See  of  Alexandria,  is  de- 
posed. These  things  may  explain  how  matters  were  settled 
at  Sardica,  if,  indeed,  the  sentence  of  this  venerable  assembly 
had  put  an  end  to  the  sufferings  of  Athanasius,  but  his  own 
writings  give  us  melancholy  proofs  that  heretical  outrages 
were  not  even  then  repressed.  The  mention  of  Osius,  in  the 
first  place,  and  then  of  Julius,  by  his  priests,  as  subscribing  the 
letters,  on  which  you  lay  some  stress,  is  not  satisfactory  evidence 
that  Osius  was  not  the  chief  legale  of  the  Pontill*.  Athanasius 
has  not  given  us  the  actual  subscriptions,  but  the  names  of 
those  who  subscribed,  so  that  we  do  not  know  the  peculiar 

*     *'  Judicio  non  steterunt." 


192  ST  ATHANASIUS. 

title  which  Osius  assumed  :  but  we  do  know,  from  all  the 
records  of  all  councils,  that  the  dignity  of  each  See,  rather  than 
individual  merit,  determined  the  place  of  each  bishop  in  the 
council,  and  the  order  of  signatures.  Tiie  inscription  of  the 
first  letter  states  that  the  synod  was  gathered  from  Rome, 
Spain,  and  Gaul,  which  is  no  small  indication  that  the  first 
signers  of  the  decrees  were  the  representatives  of  Rome.  The 
great  importance  justly  ascribed,  by  Catholics  and  by  Arians, 
to  Osius,  for  his  piety  and  zeal,  could  never  make  him,  as  bishop 
of  a  petty  diocess  in  Spain,  rank,  in  an  assembly  of  bishops, 
above  the  other  bishops  of  the  Catholic  world. 

You  have  neglected  to  observe  that  the  Fathers  of  this  coun- 
cil bore  the  most  splendid  testimony  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Primacy.  Osius  proposed,  "  If  any  bishop  be  condemned  in 
any  cause,  and  thinks  that  his  cause  is  good,  and  that  a  trial 
should  again  take  place,  if  it  meet  your  approbation,  let  us 
honour  the  memory  of  the  holy  Apostle  Peter,  and  let  those 
who  investigated  the  case  write  to  the  Roman  Bishop,  and  if 
he  judge  that  a  new  trial  be  granted,  let  it  be  granted,  and  let 
him  appoint  judges-  But  if  he  judge  that  the  cause  is  such 
that  the  proceedings  should  not  be  called  in  question,  they  shall 
be  confirmed.  Is  this  the  will  of  all  ?  The  synod  answered.  It 
is  our  will."*  Gaudentius,  a  bishop,  then  proposed  an  amend- 
ment, that  should  an  appeal  be  lodged  to  Rome,  no  bishop  should 
be  ordained  in  place  of  the  deposed  prelate:  which  was  agreed 
to.  These  canons  were  adopted  by  the  council,  and  report  was 
made  of  the  whole  proceedings  to  Julius,  the  actual  Bishop  of 
Rome,  in  a  synodical  letter,  in  which  tiie  Fathers  say:  "This 
will  seem  to  be  excellent  and  most  suitable,  if  the  priests  of 
the  Lord  report  to  the  head,  that  is,  to  the  See  of  the  Apostle 
Peter,  from  the  several  provinces."! 


*     Sardic.  Cone.  Can.  iv.  Tom.  I.  Cone.  Hard.  Col.  C40. 

t  "  Hoc  enim  optimum  et  valde  congruentissimum  esse  videbitur,  si 
ad  caput,  id  est,  ad  Petri  Apostoli  sedem,  de  singulis  quibusque  provinciis 
Domini  referant  Sacerdotes."  Ep.  Synod.  Sardic.  Apud.  Hard.  Col. 
Cone.  Tom.  I.  Col.  C53. 


DISHOl'  OF   THE   CATHOLIC   (  liriU  II.  IW 

This  council  was  lu  kl  a  lew  years  nfler  llial  of  Nice,  Osius 
being  present  at  both.  Koine  is  recognised  by  the  Fathers  as 
the  See  of  Peter,  and  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  Ecclesiastical 
causes  is  regulated  with  a  marked  deference  to  its  Bishop.  It 
is  acknowledged  to  be  the  head,  and  Julius  is  requested  to  ad- 
monish by  his  letters  all  bishops  not  to  communicate  with 
those  whom  the  council  had  condemned.  I  leave  you  to  reflect 
whether  your  cause  is  served  by  reference  to  this  venerable 
assembly. 

The  **  few  other  little  matters"  which  you  notice  in  connex- 
ion with  Athanasius,  might  have  been  passed  over  without  any 
detriment  to  your  cause.  The  term  "Pope"  applied  by  Con- 
stantine  to  Athanasius,  was  given  in  ancient  times  to  bishops 
in  general,  as  being  *'  Fathers"  of  the  faithful  ;  but  '•  Pope  of 
the  Universal  Church"  was  an  appellation  given  exclusively 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  early,  at  least,  as  tiie  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  We  do  not  rely  on  an  ambiguous  term  for  the 
Primacy,  which  we  believe  to  have  been  divinely  conferred  on 
Peter.  Custom,  so  arbitrary  in  the  use  of  titles,  has,  for  many 
ages,  appropriated  the  term  to  the  Father  of  Bishops  ;  but  au- 
thorities and  facts  prove  that  he  has  thereby  gained  no  ac- 
cession of  prerogative. 

The  title  of  "  bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Alexandria," 
given  somewhere  to  Athanasius,  is  perfectly  correct,  but  long 
before,  in  the  days  of  Cornelius  and  Cyprian,  the  Bisliop  of 
Rome  was  styled  "  Bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church."*  It  was 
unnecessary  to  qualify  it  by  the  mention  of  the  particular  Church 
of  Rome,  for  thou<rh  also  truly  styled  Bishop  of  Rome,  he,  pos- 
sessed authority  tliroughout  the  whole  Catholic  (yhurch.  'i'he 
same  style  is  still  retained  in  all  the  solemn  acts  of  the  Church, 
and  the  addition  of  the  term  "  Roman,"  in  popular  use,  neither 
limits  nor  changes  the  power  of  the  Chief  Bishop,  or  the  eha- 

*  Cornt'lium  Kpiscopun)  yanctiHsiiiui-  CaUiohcJL-  Ecclcsia',  Ep.  10, 
inter  Cypr.  p.  107.  Tom.  III.  Ed.  Wirceb.  The  penitent  schisinatics 
were  obliged  to  acknowledge  Cornelius  by  this  title,  whicli,  I  btliive,iii 
nowhere  in  antiquity  applied  to  any  one  but  th«'  Roman  liishops.  All 
other  bishops  rccoive  it  with  the  qnalifyin<;  (lo«i«rnati<'ii  of  their  >'••■. 
R 


194  ST  ATHANASItS. 

racier  of  the  Churcli.  Alhanasius  was  a  Roman  Catholic  in 
the  same  sense  as  any  bishop  in  communion  with  the  Apostolic 
See  at  this  day.  High  as  was  his  station  in  the  Church  of  God, 
pure  as  was  his  faith,  ardent  his  zeal,  unblemished  his  virtue, 
he  did  not  refuse  to  stand  at  the  tribunal  of  the  successor  of 
Peter,  and  await  with  humility  his  sentence.  In  this  he  had 
the  example  of  those  who  had  preceded  him  in  the  See  of  Alex- 
andria, amongst  whom  he  mentions  Dionysius,  who  being  ac- 
cused to  the  Roman  Pontiff  of  the  same  name,  wrote  to  him  to 
repel  the  charge,  and  satisfy  him  as  to  his  orthodoxy.* 

You  "  find  the  terms  in  which  Liberius  and  Rome  are  spoken 
of  rather  inconsistent  with  our  doctrine."  I  find  them  perfectly 
consistent,  and  I  thank  you  for  directing  attention  to  them. 
Speaking  of  the  Arian  persecutors,  Athanasius  says  :  "  In  the 
lirst  place,  they  have  not  even  spared  Liberius,  the  Roman 
Bishop,  being  restrained  by  no  consideration  either  of  its  being 
an  Apostolic  See,  or  of  Rome  being  the  metropolis  of  the  Ro- 
man dominion  ;  or  that  they  themselves  had  styled  him  '  Apos- 
tolic' in  their  writings,  but  confounding  all  things  together, 
they  were  equally  forgetful  of  all,  having  no  regard  for  any- 
thing but  impiety  alone."  Allow  me  to  continue  the  quota- 
tion :  "For  when  he  [Constantius)  saw  that  Liberius  was  or- 
thodox, and  detested  the  Arian  sect,  and  was  eager  to  reclaim 
all  from  that  heresy,  impious  men  thought  within  themselves  : 
If  we  succeed  in  gaining  Liberius  to  our  opinion,  wo  shall 
shortly  overcome  all :  they,  therefore,  propose  the  matter  to 
the  emperor;  and  he,  hoping  through  Liberius  to  be  able  to  gain 
all,  sends  to  him  a  eunuch,  of  the  name  of  Eusebius,  with  a 
letter  and  gifts,  to  allure  him  with  the  gifts  and  threaten  him 
in  the  letter.     The  eunuch  then  having  set  out  for  Rome,  first 

*  llomam  ascenderunt,  ibique  eum  apud  Dionysium  ejusdem  nomi- 
nis  Romanum  pra^sulcm  accusavei'unt."  De  Sent.  Dionys.  Alex.  p. 
345.  Also  de  Syn.  JNic.  p.  371.  Bishop  Bull  makes  mention  of  "the 
Roman  synod  held  under  their  bishop  Dionysius,  in  the  cause  of  Dio- 
nysius of  Alexandria,  who  was  accused  by  some  of  the  Church  of  Penta- 
polis,  of  denying  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  of  God." — Discourse 
IV.  p.  189,  vol.  2.     Oxford  Edit.  181G. 


LIBERIUS.  1(J5 

uracil  Lihcrius  lo  subscribe  agiiinst  Albanasius,  and  comrnuni- 
cale  wiili  ihe  Ariaiis,  because  ibe  emperor  desired  it  and  rom- 
inaiuled  il  absolutely;  then,  poinlins^  lo  ibe  gifts,  be  continued 
to  persuade  bim,  and  taking  Liberius  by  ibe  hand,  addressed 
him  :  Obey  the  king,  and  lake  lliese  gifts.  'J'lie  Hisbop,  in  re- 
ply, asked  bini  how  could  ibis  be  done  against  Albanasius  .' 
how  shall  we  condemn  (said  he)  a  man  whom  not  one,  but  two 
synods,  entirely  acquitted  of  all  guilt,  and  whom  the  Roman 
Church  dismissed  in  peace  ?  who  would  approve  of  our  con- 
duct, were  we  lo  condemn  in  his  absence  a  man  whom  we 
treated  with  aflTection  when  present,  and  with  whom  we  held 
communion  ?  'I'his  is  not  the  Ecclesiastical  canon  :  nor  the  tradi- 
tion which  we  received  from  our  Fathers,  and  which  they  de- 
rived from  the  blessed  and  great  Apostle  I'eter."'^^  I  willingly 
leave  to  the  reader  to  judge  whether  the  incidental  mention  of 
the  greatness  of  the  seat  of  empire  which  Constantius  should 
have  respected,  can  detract  from  the  testimony  here  borne  to 
il  as  being  an  Apostolic  See,  preserving  the  tradition  of  the 
great  Apostle  Peter,  and  whose  prelate  was,  on  that  account, 
styled  *'  Apostolic,"  the  gaining  of  whom  was  considered,  by 
the  enemies  of  faith,  the  conquest  of  all.  Tho  terms  in  which 
Osius  is  spoken  of  cannot  refer  to  anything  but  great  personal 
merit  connected  with  the  conspicuous  part  he  had  acted,  and  the 
high  functions  committed  lo  him  ;  for  as  bishop  of  Cordova,  he 
could  not  l)e  of  great  influence  or  rank:  whilst  those  applied 
to  Liberius,  plainly  regard  his  ollice  as  successor  of  Peter  in 
the  Apostolic  See  of  Rome.  How  anxious  the  enemies  of  the 
Primacy  are  lo  find  a  rival,  or  a  superior  to  the  Roman  Bishop  ! 
You  say,  that  "perhaps  you  ought  not  to  close  the  extracts 
from  Aibanasius,  without  taking  notice  of  the  forgeries  which 
have  been  palmed  upon  the  world  for  some  centuries  under  hi^ 
name."  Vow  ought  not  to  have  wasted  your  valuable  timt 
with  any  document  confessedly  false,  nor  should  you  have  in- 
sinuated that  such  forgeries  were  at  any  time  thought  necessary 
to  sustain   the   rights  of  the    Holy  See.     Candour  would  liave 

*      Alhan.  ad  Vitatn  Solil.  agcntcs,  p.  4.'>1 


196  ST  ATIIANASIUS. 

avowed  that  in  documents  of  undoubted  authenticity,  express- 
ions and  passages  are  found  which  probably  tlie  contriver  of 
that  literary  fraud  had  before  him.  The  title  of  "Apostolic," 
which  he  uses,  is,  at  least,  as  ancient  as  Tertulliau — "  Pope  of 
the  Universal  Church"  can  be  found  at  Chalcedon — "  root  and 
mother  of  churches"  in  Cyprian — "the  head"  in  the  synodical 
letter  of  the  Fathers  of  Sardica.  The  letter  of  Pope  Agatho, 
which  was  read  and  received  with  acclamation  in  the  sixth 
council,  as  the  voice  of  Peter,  contains  as  strong  language  in 
regard  to  the  providence  that  has  watched  over  the  Apostolic 
See,  and  seems  to  have  been  borrowed  or  imitated  by  the 
pseudo-Athanasius.  Allow  me  to  submit  an  extract  from  it. 
"  For  this  is  the  rule  of  true  faith  which  the  Apostolic  Church 
of  Christ,  this  spiritual  mother  of  your  most  tranquil  empire 
(the  Pontif}'  writes  to  Constantine  Pogonatus)  warmly  held,  and 
defended,  both  in  prosperity  and  in  adversity,  which  Church, 
through  the  grace  of  Almighty  God,  is  shown  to  have  strayed 
at  no  lime  from  the  path  of  Apostolic  tradition,  and  never  suc- 
cumbed, perverted  by  the  novelties  of  heretics  ;  but  as  from  the 
commencement  of  Christian  faith  it  received  from  its  founders, 
the  princes  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  so  it  incormptibly  re- 
mains to  the  end,  according  to  the  promise  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  himself,  which  he  declared  to  the  Prince  of  his  Apos- 
tles, as  in  the  Gospel,  saying:  '  Peter,  Peter,  lo  !  Satan  hath 
sought  to  sift  you  as  one  sifteth  wheat :  but  1  have  prayed  for 
thee,  that  thy  faith  may  not  fail :  and  thou  being  once  convert- 
ed, confirm  thy  brethren.'  Let,  then,  your  serene  clemency 
consider  that  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  all,  whose  gift  faith  is, 
and  who  promised  that  the  faith  of  Peter  should  not  fail,  charg- 
ed him  to  confirm  his  brethren :  and  it  is  notorious  to  all  that 
the  Apostolic  high  priests,  my  predecessors,  have  always  done 
so  intrepidly."*  Having  solemn  and  authentic  documents  of 
this  kind,  which  attest  not  merely  the  claims  of  the  Pontifi', 
but  the  conviction  of  a  General  Council,  composed  especially 
of  oriental  bishops,  you  may  conceive  that  we  easily  dispense 

'     Cone.  Constant.,  iii.     Act.  iv.  c.  1081.  Col.  Hard.  Tom.  III. 


FORGERY.  Jy? 

with  any  aid  lo  be  tlerived  from  a  work  falsely  ascribed  lo 
Alhanasius,  or  any  olher  individual  Fallier.  Your  reference  lo 
such  a  work  exposes  you  to  the  suspicion  of  seeking  lo  dimi- 
nish the  lustre  of  the  evidence  which  dazzles  and  overwhelms 
you,  by  insinuating  that  forgery  was  a  necessary  means  for 
sustaining  our  tenets.  Hut  forgery  is  not  our  besetting  sin.  A 
divine  of  the  establishment,  the  celebrated  antitiuary,  Dr  Whi- 
taker  has  made  a  humiliating  acknowledgment  on  this  subject: 
"  Forgery — I  blush  for  the  honour  of  Protestantism  while  I 
write  it — seems  lo  have  been  peculiar  to  the  Reformed — I  look 
in  vain  for  one  of  these  accursed  outrages  of  imposition  amongst 
the  disciples  of  Popery."* 

*     See  his  words,  quoted  in  tile  Dubhii  Review,  No.  2,  p.  540. 


LETTER  XV. 


ST  CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

St  Cyril,  who  was  bishop  of  Jerusalem  about  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  follows  in  your  list  of  authorities.  "  The 
Lord,"  says  he,  "  is  merciful  and  prompt  to  pardon,  but  slow 
to  avenge.  Let  no  one,  therefore,  despair  of  his  salvation. 
Peter,  the  highest  and  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  denied  the 
Lord  thrice  in  the  presence  of  a  vile  handmaid,  but  being 
touched  with  compunction  he  wept  bitterly."*  I  am  surprised 
that  you  translate  the  Greek  terms  as  if  a  mere  "  foreman"  or 
*' leading  preacher"  were  designated,  and  venture  to  assert 
that  they  do  not  warrant  the  Latin  translation  of  the  learned 
Touttee.  It  is  painful  to  trouble  the  general  reader  with  dis- 
cussions of  verbal  criticism ;  but  as  you  have  endeavoured  to 
destroy  the  force  of  these  terms,  it  is  proper  to  state  distinctly 
that  the  former  signifies,  according  to  the  use  of  the  classical 
authors,  and  the  explanations  of  lexicographers,  "the  highest," 
"the  most  eminent,"  "the  first  in  power,"  "the  greatest  in 
dignity."!  The  second  term  designates  "  the  foremost  in  bat- 
tle," and  in  a  secondary  sense,  "  a  prince"  or  "leader."^  It 
is  now  easy  to  judge  whether  you,  or  'i  suttee,  represent  the 
author's  meaning  with  greater  exactness.  As  the  same  terms 
occur  in  the  second  passage,  with  some  slight  variation,  the 

-      S.  Cyril,  Hieros.  c.  11,  §  19.  Ed.  Paris,  A.  D.  1720,  p.  31.     Edit. 

Oxon.  p    32.     Uirpof  0  KOpufxtoratroc  itcti   TrpceToarxTyK   Tiuv  aTToa-roKMy . 
t     Herod,  vi.  23,  "  the  very  highest,  the  most  eminent." 
t     Sec  Jones's  Greek  and  English  Lexicon,  Danimii  Lexicon  Home- 

ricum,  Hiderici,  Schrevelii  Lexic.     Herod. 


peti:k,  I'UIM  k  ov  Tni:  apostles.  11)U 

same  observnlions  may  be  applied  to  lliem.  "  IVier,  the  prince 
of  the  Apostles,  ami  tiie  supreme  herald  of  the  Church."'  'J'lie 
term  "preacher,"  but  feebly  expresses  the  idea  conveyed  bv 
the  Greek  word,  which  signifies  raliier  the  auiiiorilaiivc  pro- 
clairaer  of  sovereijrn  mandates,  the  chief  organ  of  the  Church. 
The  use  of  the  adjective  in  the  positive  det^ree  in  Greek,  does 
not  at  all  prove,  as  you  allege,  amplification  on  the  j)art  of  the 
translator,  because  its  meaning,  in  its  simplest  form,  is — "  placed 
on  the  top ;"  the  substantive,  itself,  signifying  "  head,"  or  "  sum- 
mit;" and  it  is  in  the  other  passage  ai)plied  to  Peter  in  the  super- 
lative. I  must  refer  you  to  the'aiithors  and  to  the  dictionaries, 
as  also  to  Milies,  the  IVoleslant  editor  of  the  Oxford  edition  of 
the  works  of  this  saint,  who  gives  the  sam(}  Lalin  translation 
of  these  words  as  'I'oullee.t 

It  may  gratify  some  readers  to  know  on  what  occasion  these 
appellations  were  given  to  St  Peter.  It  is  in  reference  to  the 
confession  of  the  divinity  of  Clirist,  which  he  made  when  the 
Apostles  were  questioned  whom  they  believed  him  to  be:  "All 
of  them  remaining  silent,"  says  St  Cyril,  "  for  the  doctrine 
was  beyond  the  reach  of  man,  Peter,  the  prince  of  the  Apos- 
tles, AND  the  supreme  HERALD  OF  THE  Church,  nol  following 
his  own  invention?,  nor  persuaded  by  human  reasoning,  but 
enlightened  in  his  mind  by  the  Talher,  says  to  him:  'Thou 
art  Christ,'  not  simply  this,  but  '  tiie  Son  of  the  living  God.'  " 
It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  no  allusion  is  made  to  his  preaching, 
but  to  his  ollice  as  prince  of  tlie  Apostles,  and  the  cliiof  organ 
of  the  failii  of  liie  Ciniicli  ;  so  that  your  commentary, — "  the 
preacher  who  look  the  lead,  inasmucii  as  he  preached  the  first 
sermon  to  the  Jews,"  is  surely  inadmissible. 

Your  third  extract  from  St  Cyril  is  found  in  the  fourteentli 
discourse.  The  saint  is  engaged  in  proving  the  resurrection  of 
the  Saviour,  and   thus  aj)peal3  to  the   witnesses  of  tlie  fact: 

«ji>w^.     8    Cyril   Hior.  p    IM)      Edit.  Tar.  p.  i:U).     KcJit.  Oxon.  ("at    xi 

§  1 

t  "  relrurt  pnncrpn  ApoHtoloruni  fxcrilcnlissimus,"  ia  the  translation 
of  Milies  in  the  Oxford  edition 


200  ST  CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 

"  Peter,  and  John,  and  Thomas,  and  all  the  other  Apostles.— 
Peter  testifies  it,  who  before,  indeed,  denied  him,  but  having 
thrice  confessed  him,  was  ordered  to  feed  his  spiritual  sheep." 
These  passages  precede  thai  which  you  have  quoted,  in  which 
the  saint  exhorts  the  faithful,  when  disputing  with  the  Jews,  to 
show  the  excellence  of  the  glory  of  the  Saviour,  by  the  greater 
privileges  granted  to  tlie  Apostles  above  Moses  and  the  pro- 
phets :  "  Be  not  ashamed  of  thy  Apostles,"  he  says  to  each 
Christian,  "  they  are  not  inferior  to  Moses,  nor  second  to  the 
prophets,  but  they  are  as  good  as  the  good,  and  better  than  the 
good  :  for  Elias  was  taken  up  into  heaven  ;  but  Peter  has  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  since  lie  heard  :  '  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.' 
Elias  was  taken  up  only  to  heaven  ;  Paul  to  heaven  and  to 
paradise."  The  sequel  offers  nothing  to  diminish  the  force  of 
his  assertion,  that  Peter  was  more  privileged  than  Elias, 
though  the  prophet  was  snatched  up  in  a  fiery  chariot;  for  the 
Apostle  received  the  power  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven— a  sublimer  gift — a  more  divine  privilege.  To  him  was 
given  the  commission  to  feed  the  spiritual  sheep  of  Christ. 
— You  say  :  "  it  is  evident  that,  on  the  whole,  the  saint  ex- 
presses himself  more  fully  and  warmly  in  favour  of  the  privi- 
leges of  Paul."  Let  us  not  trifle  about  the  length  of  sentences, 
or  the  beauty  of  expressions.  lie  makes  no  comparison  be- 
tween the  Apostles  :  but  he  ascribes  to  Peter  special  power  and 
authority,  which  he  does  not  ascribe  to  l^aul,  though  he  speaks 
of  his  raptures,  his  preaching,  and  his  martyrdom. 

Your  fourtii  quotation  takes  us  back  to  the  sixth  discourse, 
in  which  St  Cyril  relates  the  overthrow  of  Simon  the  Magi- 
cian, effected  by  the  prayers  of  Peter  and  Paul ;  to  render 
which  credible,  he  refers  to  the  power  of  the  keys  which  Peter 
had  received,  and  the  rapture  with  which  Paul  had  been  favour- 
ed :  "Let  it  not"  says  he,  "appear  wonderful,  however  won- 
derful it  be  in  itself;  for  Peter  was  he  who  carried  around*  the 

*  Trtpi^fipeev.  Tliis  teini  expresses  very  strongly  the  habitual  power 
and  its  exercise. 


ri:TKK  CAKIilKS  ABOUT  THK    KKVS.  201 

keys  of  heaven  :  nor  i.s  it  surprising;  i<ince  Paul  was  he  wlio 
was  wrapt  up  into  the  third  heaven  and  to  paradiise,  and  who 
heard  ineffable  words,  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  man  to  utter." 
In  this  passage,  every  thing  confirms  the  power  wiiich  we  as- 
cribe to  I'cier. — Hut  it  is  in  the  manner  of  introducing  tlie  nar- 
rative that  you  find  room  for  objection.  'J'hc  saint  states,  that 
as  the  errors  of  Simon  Magus  were  being  spread,  "  a  pair  of 
good  men,  Peter  and  Paul,  the  prelates  of  the  Church,"*  in- 
terposed, and  checked  their  progress  by  the  miraculous  over- 
throw of  their  author,  'i'he  application  of  the  same  term  •'  pre- 
lates" to  both  Apostles  indicates,  you  imagine,  an  equality  of 
office  and  authority  ;  but  the  same  style  is  observed  by  us  iH 
speaking  and  writing  of  these  Apostles,  though  no  one  can  sup- 
pose that  we  thereby  exclude  the  Primacy  of  Peter.  Both 
were  prelates  and  princes  of  the  Church  ;  Peter  as  supreme 
ruler,  Paul  with  Apostolic  power,  but  subordinate  to  Peter,  who 
is  peculiarly  styled  prince  of  the  Apostles,  a  iille  which,  I  be- 
lieve, you  will  never  find  given  to  Paul  unless  in  conjunction 
with  him.t 

'i'he  inferences  whicii  you  draw  from  these  passages  are 
strange  indeed,  and  the  assertions  which  are  made  to  sustain 
them  are  equally  surj)rising.  *'  'J'he  strongest  epithet  applied 
to  Peter — that  of  a  president  of  the  Ciiurch — is  given  to  St 
Paul  in  connexion  with  liim."  Allow  me  to  reniind  you  of 
these  much  stronger  epithets,  no  where  given  to  the  Apostle 
Paul : — "  Peter  the  most  eminent  and  the  prince  of  the  Apostles 

t  It  is  nowise  strango,  as  Hishop  Hopkins  appears  to  think,  that  the 
version  should  vary,  whore  the  orijrinal  terms  are  different,  npcrrarea 
is  correctly  rendered  •'  prtesules,"  as  this  term  is  determined  by  general 
Ecclesiastical  usage  to  signify  "bishops"  or  "prelates,"  nol  presidents, 
OM  tin-  bishop  rrndeiH  it.  MiUes  presents  the  same  variation  :  "  EcclesitE 
pra'fccli."  Neither  interprelt-r  could  have  meant  to  diminish  the  force 
of  the  term.  Uftinvr^THc,  having;  an  immediate  reference  to  the  other 
Apostles,  has  l>een  proprrly  renden'd  "  prinrops,"  prince,  chieftain,  or 
leader.  It  is  {uiinful  to  obiwrvc  (rri)undless  charges  of  infidehty  or  cor- 
rupt desi{jn  advanced  or  inHiiiuatrd  against  int«-rpreters,  by  those  who, 
in  their  attempt  to  sustain  lliem,  lay  Uiemselves  open  to  similar  imputa- 
tions. 


202  ST  CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 

— the  supreme  herald  of  the  Church."  I  cannot  persuade  my- 
self of  what  you  say  every  one  knows,  that  tliese  terms  do  not 
import  jurisdiction.  Never  was  there  a  more  idle  and  perni- 
cious abuse  of  words  than  if  they  were  used  to  "  signify  sim- 
ply a  certain  precedency  among  equals."  Power  and  authority 
were  necessarily  implied  by  them,  and  their  signification  was 
determined  and  confirmed  by  the  often  repeated  declaration — 
that  Peter  received  and  carried  about  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  and  that  he  was  commissioned  to  feed  the  sheep  of 
Christ.  You  state  that  "  his  having  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  is  compared  with  Paul's  being  taken  up  into  hea- 
ven." I  cannot  discover  a  vestige  of  such  a  comparison.  I 
see  that  the  possession  of  the  keys  by  Peter,  and  the  raptures  of 
Paul,  are  referred  to  with  a  view  to  prove  that  the  Apostles  of 
Jesus  Christ  were  more  privileged  than  the  prophets  of  the  an- 
cient dispensation:  but  this  implies  no  comparison  between 
the  power  of  Peter  and  the  favours  granted  to  Paul.  The 
comparison  lies  between  the  Apostles  and  the  prophets.  In 
like  manner  the  power  of  Peter  and  the  raptures  of  Paul  are 
alleged  to  render  credible  the  fact,  that  the  artifices  of  Simon 
Magus  were  defeated  by  both,  and  resulted  in  his  miraculous 
overthrow  ;  but  no  comparison  is  made  between  the  Apostles 
themselves.  The  author's  silence  as  to  the  erection  of  the  Ro- 
man bishopric  by  Peter,  is  no  wise  surprising,  since  he  was 
engaged  in  pointing  outtiie  heresies  regarding  the  Deity  which 
had  been  broached  by  Simon  Magus  ;  and  he  merely  digressed 
to  relate  the  miracle  that  had  marked  his  overthrow  :  so  that 
this  cannot  have  even  the  semblance  of  a  negative  argument, 
since  his  subject  did  not  call  for  a  second  digression. 

I  regret  you  have  rendered  our  investigation  so  tedious,  by 
having  recourse  to  reasoning  of  a  purely  negative  kind,  which, 
if  it  do  not  create  confusion  in  the  mind  of  most  readers,  will 
certainly  niake  the  study  of  this  subject  less  interesting.  How- 
ever, 1  must  glance  at  the  passages  you  have  adduced.  "  Christ," 
says  St  Cyril,  "  is  a  High  Priest,  having  a  priesthood  that 
passes  not  away,*  who  neither  began  his  priesthood  in  time,  nor 

*     a.7ra.fiA^(t.T0\/ . 


I'KTFR  CAUKIKS  AnOl'T  THE   KKVS.  !>03 

has  a  successor  in  his  lii<fli-prit'.sihoo(l."*  Wliy  is  he  silenl 
aboiil  ihe  viccgereiicy  of  the  Pope  ? — Because  he  is  engaged  in 
instructing  the  Catechumens  or  Neophytes  in  llie  divine  func- 
tions and  character  of  ('hrisl.  You  would  liave  him  unneces- 
sarily digress,  and  speak  of  the  organization  of  the  hierarcliy, 
and  the  powers  left  for  the  government  of  tlic  Church.  The 
Pope,  you  well  know,  does  not  claim  to  be  successor  of  Christ, 
who,  as  he  livelh  for  ever,  lias  a  perpetual  priesthood,  and  is 
the  Head  over  all  the  Church.  'I'iie  vicarial  powers,  wi)ich 
are  exercised  by  his  authority,  are  not  inconsistent,  as  you  ac- 
knowledge, with  this  sublime  doctrine. 

The  saint,  in  his  lificcnlh  discourse,  deplores  the  schisms 
and  scandals  that  already  existed,  and  speaks  of  the  still  greater 
evils  that  will  prevail  in  tlie  days  of  antichrist:  " 'i'he  wars 
among  the  nations  terrify  me  ;  the  schisms  of  the  churches  ter- 
rify me  ;  the  mutual  haired  amongst  brelliren  terrifies  me." 
Why,  you  ask,  does  he  not  point  out  the  cause  of  liie  evils, 
departure  from  the  See  of  Peter  ? — Because  he  was  neither 
treating  of  the  causes  or  remedies  of  the  evils,  but  strengthening 
the  catechumens  against  existing  scandals,  whilst  he  explained 
to  them  what  Christ  liad  predicted  was  to  come  to  pass.  'I'he 
great  cause  of  the  evils  at  that  lime  was  not,  however,  de- 
|)arture  from  the  See  of  Peter,  but  obstinacy  in  maintaining  the 
impiety  of  Arius,  and  separating  thereby  Uourisliing  churches 
from  the  Catholic  communion. 

The  beautiful  passage  from  the  sixteenth  chapter  appears  to 
you  hardly  reconcilable  with  our  dogma.  The  saint  invites 
the  catechumens  to  consider  the  boundless  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whose  graces  and  gills  are  dillused  in  abundance  over 
the  countless  multitude  of  the  faithful  throughout  the  whole 
world.  After  the  enumeration  of  nations,  he  refers  to  the  dif- 
ferent classes  of  men:  "  See,"  says  he,  "  in  each  nation  the 
bishops,  the  priests,  the  deacons,  the  monks,  the  virgins,  and 
the  laity,  and  consider  this  great  Ruler  :uul  Dispenser  of  (Jifls, 


Cat.  \.  §  xiv.  J).  1 13.   Edit.  Paris.     §  vii.  Edit.  Oxon.  p.  KU 


204  ST  CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 

how  throughout  the  world  he  gives  to  one  indeed  chastity,  to 
another  perpetual  virginity,  to  another  the  love  of  poverty,  to 
another  the  power  of  resisting  adverse  spirits."  You  look  in 
vain  for  the  Pope,  whom  you  expect  to  find  every  where  ;  but, 
once  more,  you  should  remember  that  the  saint  is  expatiating 
on  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  on  the  organization  or 
powers  of  the  hierarchy.  He  refers  to  tlie  various  classes,  with- 
out specifying  their  relations,  which  had  no  connexion  with  his 
subject.  Had  he  professed  to  describe  the  whole  constitution 
of  the  Church,  the  rank  and  powers  of  its  officers,  you  would 
no  doubt  have  seen  the  Bishop  of  Rome  at  their  head,  as  you 
find  him  in  all  monuments  of  antiquity  that  present  a  view  of 
the  hierarchy.  Your  comparison  of  the  historian  forgetting  the 
king,  in  describing  a  monarchy,  is  not  exact,  since  Cyril  was 
not  an  historian,  but  an  orator,  and  undertook  no  description  of 
the  Church. 

That,  in  speaking  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  the  Apostles,  when  they  were  empowered  to  forgive  sins,  St 
Cyril  should  have  given  no  intimation  that  Peter  was  consti- 
tuted their  head,  is  no  matter  of  surprise,  since  it  was  not  on 
that  occasion  the  special  power  of  governing  the  flock  of  Christ 
was  conferred  on  this  Apostle.  It  was  when  he  was  charged 
to  feed  the  sheep,  as  the  saint  has  elsewhere  specified. 

It  was  scarcely  proper  to  introduce  here  the  remarks  of  the 
translator  of  St  Cyril,  who,  as  you  must  admit,  in  observing 
that  Jerusalem  was  the  mother  of  all  tlie  churches,  merely  meant 
that  the  divine  religion  of  Christ  was  first  preached  and  esta- 
blished there,  and  did  not  at  all  call  in  question  the  right  of  the 
Roman  Church  to  be  called  m.other  of  all  others,  because  most 
have  been  brought  forth  to  Christ  by  Apostolic  men  whom  she 
sent  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  all  are  governed  by  her  with 
maternal  authority  and  aflJection.  Wliat  end  is  attained  by 
availing  one's  self  of  an  ambiguous  phrase,  where  the  author's 
meaning  is  manifest? 

In  the  seventeenth  discourse,  whence  you  cite  the  next  testi- 
mony you  bring  from  St  Cyril,  you  complain  that  no  intima- 
lion  is  given  of  the  Primacy  of  Peter,  yet  you  will  find  it  thus 


CATHoi.ir  cHrRcii.  205 

clearly  and  strongly  expressed: — "  In  ihe  same  power  of  ihe 
Holy  Ghost,  Peter,  also,  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
key-bearer  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  cured  iEneas,  a  palsied 
man,  in  the  name  of  Christ,  at  Lydda,  now  called  Diospolis.* 

You  have  furnished  your  readers  with  some  admirable  ex- 
tracts from  ihe  eighteenth  discourse,  wherein  the  article  of  the 
creed — "  I  believe  in  the  Holy  C'aiholic  Church," — is  heaulifully 
expounded.  "  Many  things,"  says  the  saint,  **  might  he  said  of 
her,  but  we  shall  be  brief.  She  is  called  Catholic,  therefore, 
because  she  is  dill'used  throughout  the  world,  from  one  ex- 
tremi-ly  to  the  other.  And  because  she  teaches  in  a  Catholic 
manner,  and  without  imperfection,!  all  the  dogmas  wliich 
should  come  to  the  knowledge  of  men,  concerning  visible  and 
invisible  things,  heavenly  and  earlhly.  And  because  she  sub- 
jects every  class  of  men,  the  rulers  as  well  as  their  subjects, 
the  learned  and  unlearned,  directing  them  to  piety.  And  be- 
cause universally  curing  and  healing  every  species  of  sins, 
committed  by  the  soul  or  body,  she  possesses  in  herself  every 
kind  of  virtue,  by  whatever  name  it  may  beJvnown,  in  works 
and  words,  and  sj)iritual  gifts  of  every  kind. — She  is  also 
properly  styled  a  (Church,  or  convocation,  on  account  of  the 
calling  and  assembling  of  all  in  her.  The  Psalmist  says  :  *  I 
will  confess  to  thee  in  the  great  Church  :  1  will  praise  thee  in 
the  numerous  people  ! '  Before,  it  was  sung  in  the  Psalms  :  '  In 
the  churches  bless  ye  the  Lord  («od  from  the  fountains  of 
Israel :'  but  after  the  Jews  fell  from  grace,  in  consequence  of 
the  snares  laid  for  the  Saviour,  he  instituted  another  society, 
formed  of  the  Geniiles — our  holy  Christian  Church  :  of  which 
he  said  to  Peter:  *  On  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.' — Of  this  lioly 
Catholic  Church,  Paul  writes  to  Tinu)lhy  :  '  that  thou  mayest 
know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God, 
which  is  the  Church  of  the  living  (.'od,  the  pillar  and  the 
groimd  of  truth.' 

♦♦  But  since  the  name  of  church  is  applied  lodiircrent  things, 

•       r.  2o:{.       Edit.  Ox.  t       JtAO-CAuarc    icxi    «HKAI/T«r;. 

8 


206  ST  CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 

as  it  is  written  of  the  multitude  in  the  theatre  of  the  Ephesians ; 
'And  saying  these  things  he  dismissed  the  Church' — and  witli 
justice  and  truth  one  might  say,  that  the  church  of  the  wicked 
is  the  conventicles  of  heretics,  to  wit — Marcionites,  Manicheana 
and  the  rest ;  therefore,  now  faith  lias  delivered  to  you  most 
firmly  this  article — and  in  one  holy  Catholic  Church,  that  you 
may  shun  the  polluted  conventicles  of  these  men,  and  persevere 
throughout  in  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  in  which  you  were 
regenerated.  If,  perchance,  you  travel  abroad  in  cities,  do  not 
simply  ask :  where  is  the  Lord's  house  ?  for  even  the  various 
sects  of  the  impious  endeavour  to  call  their  caverns  the  houses 
of  the  Lord  :  nor  ask  simply  :  where  is  the  Church?  but  where 
is  the  Catholic  Church  ?  for  this  is  the  proper  name  of  the  holy 
mother  of  us  all,  which  truly  is  the  spouse  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God."* 

I  would  compliment  but  little  the  intellect  of  my  readers 
were  I  to  offer  any  comment  on  this  text.  You,  however, 
cannot  find  in  it  any  thing  like  our  doctrine.  What  unbiassed 
man,  who  compares  them,  will  hesitate  to  pronounce  them  one 
and  the  same  ?  The  Pope  is  there,  though  you  cannot  see  him, 
for  on  Peter,  as  on  a  rock,  the  saint  declares  that  the  Church 
is  built.  Strange  infatuation  !  You  complain  of  not  finding, the 
privileges  of  Peter,  where  nothing  warrants  you  to  expect 
them,  and  you  close  your  eyes  on  those  characters  of  light  in 
which  they  are  recorded  ! 

You  add  some  passages  from  Cyril's  works  to  show  the 
authority  of  Scriptures.  With  Cyril  we  venerate  the  oracles  of 
God.  With  him  we  say  : — "  we  recognise  salvation  in  Christ 
Jesus:  Was  Christ  incarnate  to  no  purpose?  the  God- 
man  whom  the  Scriptures  declare.  Are  these  doctrines 
fond  inventions  and  sophisms  of  men  ?  Are  not  the  divine 
Scriptures  our  salvation  ?  are  not  the  predictions  of  the  pro- 
phets ?  Keep,  then,  this  permanent  deposit,  and  let  no  one 
shake  your  faith  :  believe  that  God  became  man."t — Concern- 
ing the  Holy  Spirit  we  likewise  hold  what  the  Scriptures  teach, 

*    Catech.  xviii.  §  23, 25, 26.  \    12  Cat.  p.  155.  Edit.  Oxon. 


8T  THOMAS  OF   AQl'lV.  207 

nor  do  we  venture  to  search,  with  rash  curiosity,  into  this 
mystery  beyond  wliat  he  lias  been  pleased  to  reveal  of  liiinself. 
This  is  all  tliat  the  saint  states. 

You  mii^Iit,  Right  Heverend  Sir,  liave  cried  "alas!"  for 
very  dinereiit  reasons  than  those  wiiich  you  sul)join  in  your 
affectionate  appeal.  Alas  !  lor  the  prejudi(;e  that  is  not  dissi- 
pated by  the  blaze  of  evidence  presented  by  the  sainted  bishop 
of  Jerusalem  !  But  how  could  you  venture  to  close  your  chap- 
ter with  an  insinuation  against  the  memory  of  the  illustrious 
doctor,  St  Thomas  of  Aquin  ?  Because,  in  an  age  when  the  facili- 
ties of  judging  of  the  authenticity  of  works  were  not  such  as 
we  possess,  a  passage  was  quoted  by  him  from  a  work,  which 
passed  as  genuine,  you  write  as  if  it  were  a  forgery,  contrived, 
or  sanctioned,  by  that  venerated  writer.  I  feel  for  the  accuser 
of  such  a  man. 


LETTER  XVI. 


ST  HILARY  OF  POICTIERS. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

From  Jerusalem  you  transfer  us  to  Gaul,  to  receive  the  de- 
positions of  St  Hilary,  bishop  of  Poictiers.  In  his  treatise  "  On 
the  Trinity^''''  he  addresses  God  the  Father,  declaring  his  belief 
in  the  divinity  of  the  Son,  and  beautifully  states  the  grounds  of 
his  faith  by  a  reference  to  the  authority  of  Moses,  the  Prophets, 
the  Evangelists,  and  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  Were  he  in 
error,  he  boldly  says  that  his  ruin  should  be  laid  to  their  charge. 
Of  these  he  speaks  in  those  terms :  "  Matthew,  from  a  publican, 
chosen  to  be  an  Apostle ;  John,  through  the  familiarity  of  the 
Lord,  made  worthy  of  a  revelation  of  heavenly  mysteries  ;  and 
after  his  confession  of  the  mystery,  blessed  Simon,  lying  be- 
neath, that  the  Church  might  be  built  on  him,*  and  receiving 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and  all  the  others  preach- 
ing by  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  the  vessel  of  thy  election,  Paul, 
from  a  persecutor  made  an  Apostle,  living  in  the  depth  of  the 
sea,  a  man  raised  to  the  third  heaven,  in  paradise  before  martyr- 
dom, the  offering  of  perfect  faith  being  accomplished  in  his  mar- 
tyrdom. By  these  I  have  been  instructed  in  what  I  hold:  with 
these  doctrines  I  am  unalterably  imbued.  And  forgive  me,  O 
Almighty  God,  for  adding,  that  in  these  doctrines  I  cannot  im- 
prove, but  I  am  able  to  die  in  their  belief."! — You  maintain  that 
the  words  which  refer  to  Peter,  taken  in  connexion  with  the 


*     Edification!  Ecclesiae  subjacens."     Bishop  Hopkins  has  rendered 

:  "  Lying  at  the  foundation  of  the  Church." 

t     S.  Ilil.  de  Trin.  1.  vi.  Tom.  VIII.  n.  20.     Edit.  Wirceb.  p.  154. 


PETER  TIIK    lOLNDATION.  209 

rest,  prove  nothing  for  our  doctrine  ;  hut  I  cannot  discover  what 
they  lose  by  tliat  connexion.  The  saint,  indeed,  is  not  hihouring 
to  prove  tiie  prerogatives  of  Peter,  but  tlie  divinity  of  Ilim 
whom  Peter  confessed  to  be  the  ^on  of  the  living  God.  Inci- 
dentally, however,  he  mentions  that  Peter  was  the  foundation 
on  whicii  the  Ciiurch  was  built, — for  this  surely  is  the  force  of 
the  words, — and  lie  declares  that  he  received  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  This  proves  clearly  the  intimate  and  im- 
portant relation  which  Peter  bears  to  the  Churcli,  and  the  high 
authority  which  he  specially  exercises ;  and  as  the  building 
must  have  at  all  times  its  foundation,  the  inference  of  the  per- 
manence of  the  power  in  the  successors  of  Peter  is  too  obvious 
to  be  fairly  called  in  question.  The  strength  of  the  proof  is  ra- 
ther increased  by  the  indirect  manner  of  the  reference  to  the 
powers  of  Peter,  because  it  indicates  that  they  were  admitted 
facts. 

In  the  address  of  Hilary  to  the  Apostles,  you  appear  to  your- 
self to  find  a  positive  demonstration,  that  in  the  passage  just 
alleged  no  peculiar  power  or  prerogatives  were  ascribed  to 
Peter.  He  thus  aposlropliises  them  :  "  O  holy  and  blessed 
men,  wiio  llirough  the  merit  of  your  faiih  ol)tained  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  received  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  you  had  seen  so  great  prodi- 
gies, so  worthy  of  God,  performed  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."* 
This  does  not  at  all  demonstrate  the  point  in  question,  for  in 
addressing  a  number  of  persons,  one  of  whom  possesses  some 
peculiar  power,  whilst  others  have  powers  of  a  similar  character, 
though  with  a  certain  subordination,  it  was  most  natural  to  use 
language  common  to  all  without  any  nice  distinction.  It  is  not  in 
rhetorical  apostrophes  that  you  should  expect  tlie  accurate  distinc- 
tions of  the  schools.  To  all  the  Apostles  Christ  gave  the  power 
of  binding  and  loosing: — to  Peter,  on  account  of  the  excellence 
of  his  faith,  lie  gave  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  When- 
ever this  Apostle  is  spoken  of  in  particular,  you  will  find  this 
specially  observed;  and  if  at  any  time  the  power  of  the  keys 

•   Hilar,  dc  Trin    I    vi   Tuiu    VIII    p.  ]iA'j.  Ed.  Wire  p.  IH.  Kd.  Par 
8» 


210  ST  HILARY  OF  POICTIERS. 

is  attributed  to  the  otliers,  it  is  without  any  derogation  to  the 
eminent  mode  in  which  it  belongs  to  him.  Although  we  strenu- 
ously maintain  his  Primacy,  we  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  the 
exercise  of  the  ministry  by  the  most  lowly  of  the  priests,  as  of 
the  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  keys.  The  use,  then,  of  simi- 
lar language  does  not  detract  from  his  high  prerogative. 

When  speaking  of  the  confession  made  by  Peter,  Hilary 
shows  that  it  was  extolled  by  the  Saviour,  as  divinely  revealed, 
because  it  was  an  acknowledgment,  not  merely  of  his  being 
the  Messiah,  or  the  adopted  Son  of  God,  but  that  he  is  his  true 
and  eternal  Son  :  "  For  praise,"  says  he,  "  was  given  to  Peter, 
not  merely  on  account  of  the  confession  of  the  honour  (due  to 
Christ),  but  on  account  of  his  acknowledgment  of  the  mystery, 
because  he  confessed  not  merely  Christ,  but  Christ  the  Son  of 
God.*  The  Father  saying,  '  This  is  my  So7i,^  revealed  to 
Peter,  that  he  might  say, '  thou  art  the  Son  of  God.'  On  this  rock 
of  confession,  therefore,  the  Church  is  built.  This  faith  is  the 
foundation  of  the  Church :  through  this  faith  the  gates  of  hell  are 
powerless  against  her.  This  faith  has  the  keys  of  the  heavenly 
kingdom.  What  this  faith  binds  or  looses  on  earth,  is  bound  and 
loosed  in  heaven.  This  faith  is  tlie  gift  of  the  Father's  revela- 
tion, not  falsely  to  assert  that  Christ  is  a  creature  drawn  forth 
from  nothing,  but  to  confess  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  accord- 
ing to  his  natural  property.  O  !  impious  frenzy  of  wretched 
folly,  that  does  not  understand  the  martyr  of  blessed  old  age 
and  faith,  the  martyr  Peter,  for  whom  the  Father  was  prayed, 
that  his  faith  might  not  fail  in  temptation — who,  having  twice 
repeated  the  profession  of  the  love  God  demanded  of  him, 
siglied,  on  being  a  third  time  interrogated,  as  if  his  love  were 
doubtful  and  unceriain,  thereby  also  meriting  to  hear  thrice 
from  the  Lord,  after  being  purified  of  his  weaknesses  by  this 
threefold  trial :  '  Feed  my  sheep  :' — who,  whilst  all  the  other 
Apostles  remained  silent,  understanding,  in  a  manner  beyond 
human  infirmity,  from  tlie  revelation  of  the  Father,  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God,  merited  pre-eminent  glory  by  the  confession 
of  his  faith  !  To  what  necessity  of  interpreting  his  words  are 

*    S.  Hil  de  Trin.  1.  vi.  p.  168. 


PETER  8   FAITH.  211 

we  now  brought  ?    He  confessed  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God  : 

but  you  {Jlr'uin),  the  lyiuir  priesthood  of  a  new  Apostolate, 
urge  nie  to  believe*  that  Clirisl  is  a  creature  brought  forth  from 
nothing.  What  violence  you  ofler  to  his  glorious  words  !  He 
confessed  tiie  Son  of  God  :  for  this  lie  is  blessed.  This  is  the 
revelation  of  the  Talher,  tliis  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church, 
this  is  the  security  for  eternity.  Hence,  he  hast  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven — hence  his  judgments  on  earth  are  rati- 
fied in  heaven.  He  learned  by  revelation  the  mystery  hidden 
from  ages — he  spoke  the  faith — he  declared  the  nature — lie 
confessed  the  Son  of  God.  Whoever,  rather  acknowledging 
him  a  creature,  denies  this,  should  first  deny  the  Aposlolate  of 
Peter,  his  faith,  blessedness,  priesthood,  martyrd«)m  ;  and  then 
let  him  understand  that  he  is  estranged  from  Christ,  because 
Peter,  confessing  him  to  be  the  Son,  merited  these  things.  .  .  . 
Let  there  be  a  diflerent  faith,  if  there  be  difl'erent  keys  of  hea- 
ven. Let  there  be  a  dillercnt  faith,  if  there  is  to  be  another 
Church  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail.  Let 
there  be  another  faith,  if  tlierc  will  he  another  Apostolatc,  binding 
and  loosing  in  heaven  what  it  binds  and  looses  on  earth.  Let 
there  be  another  faith,  if  Christ  shall  be  preached  a  diflerent 
Son  of  God  than  he  is.  liut  if  this  faith  only  that  confessed 
Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  merited  in  Peter  the  glory  of  all 
beatitudes,  that  which  acknowledges  him  rather  a  creature  from 
nothing,  must  necessarily  be  not  the  Church,  nor  of  Christ, 
since  it  has  not  obtained  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  is  contrary  to  the  Apostolic  faith  and  power.**| 

I  have  been  somewhat  more  difl'use  than  you,  in  my  quota- 
tions from  this  Father,  that  the  reader  might  have  a  full  and 
correct  view  of  his  sciitinicnls.      Yon   "  find  our  witness  de- 


•  "  Mihi  ingoriH.  "  The  correct  translation  is  hort' given.  iJishop  II 
inistakfs  it  for  castinir  nut  (  hrtst. 

t  *'  Hinc  rrgni  ctrlorum  liabct  clavca.  "  IJishop  Hopkins's  transla- 
tion iH  Burcly  not  a  fuitliful  r^'proscntation  of  the  text:  **  hence,  arc  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  ofht-aven  !"     Why  thia? 

t     S.  Hil.  dc  Trin.  I.  vi.  p.  lO'.K 


212  ST  HILARY  OF  POICTIERS. 

daring,  that  not  Peter,  but  the  faith  which  he  confessed,  was 
the  foundation  of  the  Church." — Point  to  the  passage  wherein  it 
is  said  that  Peter  was  not  the  foundation.  It  nowhere  occurs. 
The  object  of  St  Hilary  is  to  show  tliat  tlie  Arian  heresy  had 
no  part  or  share  in  the  power  of  tlie  keys,  or  the  privileges 
granted  to  Peter,  because  it  had  not  the  faith  which  obtained 
for  Peter  these  privileges.  There  is  not  the  least  effort  to  es- 
tablish a  distinction  between  Peter  and  the  confession  of  faith 
which  he  made  :  but  the  Arians  are  confounded  by  being  told, 
that,  as  they  deny  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  they 
have  no  power  of  the  keys,  and  are  not  inheritors  of  the  pro- 
mises made  to  the  Church.  Peter,  then,  confessing  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  is  the  foundation:  his  is  the  Apostolate,  the  acts 
whereof  are  confirmed  in  heaven  :  the  Church  connected  with 
him  is  that  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  prevail :  there 
can  be  no  other  faith,  no  other  power,  no  other  Church. 

Your  translation  of  the  passage  of  St  Hilary,  wherein  he 
speaks  of  the  cure  of  the  mother-in-law  of  Peter,  and  says  that 
Peter  is  "  the  prince  of  the  Apostolate,"*  appears  to  me  inac- 
curate, and  the  earnestness  with  which  you  solicit  attention  to 
your  remarks  on  the  term  "  princeps,"  occasions  some  sur- 


*  S.  Hilar,  in  Matt.  c.  vii.  "Primus  credidit,  et  Apostolatus  est 
princeps."  Bishop  Hopkins  translates  this  passage — ''  he  first  believed, 
and  is  the  beginning  of  the  Apostolate,"  He  maintains  that  "princeps" 
may  be  rendered  "  beginning,"  and  that  *'  prince"  is  only  a  secondary, 
or  rather  a  third  meaning,  its  primary  signification  being  first,  original, 
primitive.  I  shall  not  dispute  with  the  bishop  as  to  its  primary  meaning; 
but  the  learned  will  admit  that  its  general  acceptation  is  a  c/iie/,  or  ruler, 
and  it  is  manifest  that  in  most  of  the  passages  of  the  Fathers,  it  cannot 
receive  any  other  explanation.  Though  "  princeps  mensis"  means  "  the 
first  month,"  I  know  no  passage  of  sacred  or  profane  authors,  where 
"princeps"  means  <Ae  beginning.  Perhaps  the  bishop  had  principium 
in  his  mind.  He  remarks,  in  a  note,  that  a  bishop  is  styled  by  Hilary 
"  princeps  ecclesiae,"  which  certainly  does  not  mean  the  beginning  of 
the  Church,  but  "a  prince  of  the  Church,"  a  governor,  a  ruler.  Peter 
was  "  prince  of  the  Apostolate,"  governing  the  others,  that  no  schism 
might  arise.  All  bishops  may  be  called  princes  of  the  Church,  because 
they  are  governors  of  portions  of  it ;  but  one  is  set  over  all. 


APOSTROPHE  TO  PETKR.  213 

prise.  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  note,  and  only  remark,  that  if 
there  were  any  amhiguity  in  the  term,  the  many  passages  in 
the  writings  of  this  Father,  in  which  he  speaks  of  Peler,  with 
holy  enthusiasm,  should  have  removed  all  doubt  from  your 
mind  as  to  its  meaning.  In  his  commentary  on  tiie  glorious 
confession  of  this  Apostle,  he  observes:  *' The  confession  of 
Peter  obtained  a  siiiiable  reward,  because  he  saw  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  man.  Blessed  is  he,  who  was  praised  for  observ- 
ing and  seeing  beyond  what  human  eyes  could  see; — not  be- 
holding what  was  of  llesh  and  blood,  but  discerning  the  JSon  of 
God  by  the  revelation  of  the  heavenly  Father;  and  who  was 
judged  worthy  to  be  the  first  to  recognise  in  Christ  his  divine 
nature.  O  thou  foundation  of  the  Church,  happy  in  the  new 
appellation  which  thou  rcccivest ;  O!  rock,  worthy  of  that 
building  which  is  to  destroy  the  infernal  laws,  and  the  gates  of 
hell,  and  all  the  bars  of  death  !  O  !  happy  gate-keeper  of  hea- 
ven, to  whose  discretion  the  keys  of  t!ie  eternal  porch  are  de- 
livered, and  whose  judgment  on  earth  is  a  prejudged  authority 
in  heaven,  so  that  those  things  which  are  bound  or  loosed  on 
earth,  obtain  in  heaven  a  like  condition  and  determination."* — 
The  elTort  which  you  make  to  explain  away  the  force  of  this 
passage,  by  referring  it  to  the  faith  of  Peter,  as  if  this  were 
elsewhere  distinguished  by  the  saint  from  Peter  confessing 
Christ,  needs  no  reply.  Whoever  does  not  wish  to  mistake 
the  meaning  of  the  author,  can  easily  discover  it. 

You  quote  a  passage  in  which  Hilary  says:  "This  is  to 
be  considered  in  regard  to  Peter,  that  he  preceded  tiic  others 
in  faiih  :  for  when  the  others  were  ignorant,  he  was  the  first 
to  answer:  *Thou  art  the  Son  of  the  living  (iod.'  He  was  the 
first  to  reject  the  idea  of  his  sulVerint?,  thinking  it  to  be  evil.  \\v 
was  the  first  to  pronjise  that  he  would  die  rather  than  deny  Him. 
He  was  the  first  to  refuse  to  have  his  feel  wahhed.  He  also  drew 
the  sword  against  those  who  came  to  seize  on  the  Lord."  To 
this  (quotation,  you  subjoin  this  remark  :  "  This  passage  is  one 

•      S.  Mil.  Comm.  in  Malt.,  c.   xiv.   p.    110.   Wire.   Kdil.   p.  r*7J    Tar 
Edit. 


214  ST  HILAllY  OF  POICTIERS. 

of  many  which  explain  what  the  ancients  meant  by  Peter's 
Primacy.  But  Hilary  is  not  here  engaged  in  explaining  the 
Primacy,  or  the  Scriptural  texts  by  which  it  is  sustained.  He 
is  speaking  of  the  walking  of  Peter  on  the  waters  :  and  he  cer- 
tainly says  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  Primacy, — nothing  to 
weaken  the  force  of  those  passages  in  which  he  expressly  treats 
of  the  prerogatives  of  Peter.  I  need  not  trouble  the  reader  with 
the  passage  from  the  commentary  on  the  118lh  Psalm,  where 
the  saint  takes  occasion  to  dwell  on  the  answer  of  Peter  to 
the  cripple  who  sought  alms:  "  Silver  and  gold  I  have  not: 
but  what  I  have,  1  give  you  :  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
I  say  to  thee,  arise."  You  think  that  St  Hilary  should  have 
observed,  that  Peter,  besides  the  power  of  miracles,  had  pleni- 
tude of  power  over  the  Apostles.  Did  the  occasion  demand 
any  such  reference  ? 

In  the  commentary  on  the  fifty-second  Psalm,*  you  find  a 
passage  in  which,  speaking  of  the  Apostles,  Hilary  says  that 
"  they  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  ex- 
planation already  given  of  a  similar  expression,  in  the  sixth 
Book  on  "  The  Trinity,"  will  be  found  stricdy  applicable  to 
this.  He  was  not  labouring  to  prove  that  they  all  had 
equal  power;  but  since  the  Psalmist  complains  of  the  general 
corruption  of  men,  and  says,  that  there  is  none  good — no,  not 
one — Hilary  inquires,  "how  then  was  Abel  pleasing  to  God, 
Seth  approved  of,  Isaac  made  heir,  Enoch  translated,  Noe 
preserved,  Melchisedech  sanctified,  Abraham  chosen,  Jacob 
made  Israel,  Job  declared  without  blame,  Moses  the  friend  of 
God,  Aaron  his  anointed,  David  a  man  according  to  the  heart 
of  God,  the  prophets  spiritual  men,  and  how  did  the  Apostles 
receive  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?"t  Such  a  phrase 
could  be  correctly  understood  of  the  Apostolic  College,  even 
were  that  power  vested  in  only  one  of  them,  because  such  ge- 

*  Bishop  Hopkins  calls  it  fifty-first,  because  it  is  thus  numbered  in 
the  Protestant  Bible  :  but  it  is  fifty-second  in  Hilary,  as  well  as  in  our 
Vulgate ;  and  in  quotations  accuracy  of  reference  should  always  be  ob- 
served. 

t     P.  243.   Edit.  Wire.  p.  70G.  Edit.  Paris. 


POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  216 

neral  phrases  applied  lo  coninuinilies,  or  collections  of  men,  are 
sullicienily  verilietl  if  llie  jiower  is  lodged  somewhere  in  the 
body.  Wc  cheerfully  admit  that  all  ihe  Apostles  had  the 
power  of  the  keys,  inasmuch  as  thai  jiower  is  idenlified  with 
the  general  funciions  of  the  Christian  ministry,  especially  the 
authority  to  bind  and  loose:  though  we  contend  that  the  grant 
of  that  power  lo  Peter  individually,  and  by  this  peculiar  em- 
blem, proves  the  possession  of  it  in  an  eminent  degree,  espe- 
cially for  the  general  government  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  on 
earth.* 

The  epithets  "  Master,"  or  "  Teacher  of  Nations,"  *'  Doctor 
of  Nations,"  "Chosen  Teacher  of  the  Church  of  Christ,"  and 
any  others  applied  by  St  Hilary,  or  the  other  Fathers,  to  St 
Paul,  are  given  by  us  also  to  this  great  Apostle,  without  any 
detriment  to  the  ofticial  prerogatives  of  Peter :  nor  are  our  proofs 
of  the  Primacy  dependent  on  words  of  similar  import.  The 
terms  which  we  allege  in  support  of  it,  are  such  as  denote  supe- 
riority and  power,  and  their  meaning  is  determined  by  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  they  are  used,  and  by  clear  and  unequivo- 
cal testimonies  and  facts. 

You  ofler  us,  in  addition,  some  passages,  which  you  say 
"  exhibit  clearly  the  polity  of  the  (Jhurch,  and  tlie  regard  paid 
to  councils  in  the  days  of  Hilary."  In  his  letter  to  the  Arian 
emperor,  Constantius,  he  complains  of  his  banishment,  occa- 
sioned by  faction  and  false  messengers  of  the  council,  who  de- 
ceived the  emperor.t  Of  what  council  ?  Of  the  Arian  synod, 
held  at  Hcrry,  in  which  Saturnine,  the  Arian  bishop  of  Aries, 

"  Archbishop  Potter  acknowledges  the  keys  to  be  the  emblem  of 
!»upremo  power  :  "  Our  blessed  Lord,  an  the  kin<j  of  this  household,  who 
has  the  supreme  power  lo  admit  and  exclude  whoinH<K'ver  he  ploaselh, 
is  said  to  have  the  keys  of  David."  He  «*ndcav(>ur8  lo  cxtnid  this  power 
lo  all  bishops,  though  il  was  given  especially  to  I'etrr.  *•  The  supreme 
power  of  the  keys,  thai  is,  the  authority  of  admitting  and  excluding,  be- 
longs to  Christ,  the  King;  but  the  name  is  ex«'rris<'d  by  his  Aposlh-s  and 
their  successors,  whom  he  has  nppointrd  to  govern  Ihr  Church,  as  his 
stewards  or  vicegerents."— On  Church  Guvcinmcnt,  p.  300." 

t      ilil.  1. 'J.  ad  Constant.  Aug. 


216  ST  HILARY  OF  POICTIERS. 

prevailed  against  Hilary,  precisely  because  he  strenuously  de- 
fended the  Nicene  faith.*  You  say  he  refers  the  emperor  to 
Scripture.  Not  certainly  with  a  view  to  render  questionable 
the  doctrine  defined  at  Nice,  which  his  whole  life  was  spent  in 
sustaining.  His  abundant  quotations  from  Scripture  are  all  di- 
rected to  this  end.  In  vain  would  he  have  urged  the  authority  of 
Nice  to  an  Arian  : — it  was  necessary  to  proceed  at  once  to  the 
cause  in  question,  and  show  that  nothing  new  had  been  intro- 
duced in  that  council,  but  that  the  ancient  and  divine  doctrine 
was  simply  propounded.  Yet  he  does  not  fail  to  observe,  that 
those  who  reject  that  council  are  involved  in  uncertainty,  and 
are  daily  coining  new  confessions  of  faith  :  "  Whilst,"  says 
he,  "  as  there  is  but  one  God,  and  one  Lord,  and  one  baptism, 
so  also  there  is  but  onefaith,t  we  depart  from  that  faith,  which 
is  the  only  one,  and  whilst  many  forms  of  faith  are  invented, 
the  matter  is  brought  to  tiiis,  that  none  exists. "J  He  speaks 
here  as  if  he  were  one  of  the  composers  of  new  creeds  ;  but  I 
need  not  tell  you  that  it  is  a  rhetorical  communication  of  phrase, 
adopted  to  render  less  painful  his  poignant  remarks.  What  he 
adds  of  the  many  jarring  councils  of  his  time,  is  evidently  di- 
rected against  the  Arian  conventicles,  in  which  the  power  of 
the  emperor  was  employed  to  induce  the  Catholic  bishops  to 
recede  from  the  great  symbol  of  Nice.  Hence,  in  his  first 
book,  he  speaks  with  applause  of  the  conduct  of  Eusebius, 
bishop  of  Vercelles,  who,  in  a  council  convened  at  Milan, 
through  Arian  influence,  being  called  on  to  subscribe  to  the 
condemnation  of  Athanasius,  would  not  suffer  the  measure  to 
be  at  all  entertained,  until  the  faith  of  the  bishops  was  mani- 
fested by  their  assent  to  the  Nicene  formulary,  and  thereby 
broke  up  the  assembly. §  His  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  in  sup- 
port of  this  faith,  was  very  unlike  that  of  modern  sectarists : 

*     See  Ilil.  1.  un.  adv.  Constant.  §  2. 

j  "  Excedinius  ab  ea  fide,  quae  sola  est."  Bishop  Hopkins,  or  the 
translator  whom  he  follows,  has  mistaken  the  verb,  and  translated,  "  cut 
out." 

X     S.  Hil.  ad  Constant.  Aug.  1.  ii.  n  4.  Tom.  IX.  Ed.  Wirceb. 

§     S.  Hil.  1.  i.  ad  Constant.  §  8,  p.  5.  Wire.  ed. 


SKXSE  OF  scRii'Trui:.  217 

"  Remember,  however,"  he  says,  "  ihal  there  is  none  o\  ihe 
lieretics  wlio  does  not  falsely  allege,  that  tiie  blaspliLMiiics  which 
he  preaclies  are  accordiii';  to  the  Scriptures.  All  ol"  iliein  speak 
Scripture,  without  regardin«r  the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  boast 
of  faith,  wiiilst  they  have  no  faitii.  For  tlie  Scriptures  do  not 
consist  in  the  reading,  but  the  understanding,  nor  are  thev  in 
prevarication,  but  in  ciiarity."*  This  is  what  immediately  pre- 
cedes tlie  last  passage  wliich  you  have  adduced,  and  wiiicii, 
you  would  have  your  readers  believe,  contain  a  pledge  on  the 
part  of  Hilary,  to  confine  himself  to  the  Scriptures  alone,  with 
total  disregard  of  the  Nicene  decree.  You  sliould  have  known 
that,  like  Athanasius,  Hilary  was  the  chanjpion  and  the  martyr 
of  that  definition.  You  deduce  tlie  total  inefllcicncy  of  coun- 
cils to  command  acquiescence  or  general  assent,  from  the  dis- 
tractions of  the  Church,  as  staled  by  Hilary:  but  ho  drew  a 
very  different  inference  from  the  Arian  intrigues  and  persecu- 
tions, which  you  call  ♦'  the  distractions  of  tiie  Church."  "  'J'he 
integrity,"  says  he,  ♦*  of  this  faith  is  commended  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Gospel,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  and  by 
the  vain  intrigues  of  heretics,  murmuring  on  every  side.  For 
this  foundation  stands  strong  and  immovable,  against  all  winds, 
rains,  torrents:  it  is  not  to  be  blown  down  by  storms — it  can- 
not be  penetrated  by  rain — it  cannot  be  washed  away  by  floods  : 
and  that  must  be  excellent,  which,  assailed  by  many,  can  be 
overthrown  by  none."t 

May  I  add  the  observation  of  a  learned  bishop  of  the  Fn- 
glish  establishment  ?  *'  When  Christ  sj)ake  first  i)arlicujarlv  to 
St  Peter,  he  sealed  his  speech  willi  a  powerful  promise  of  per- 
petuity, saying:  *  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 

a:  "I 

"     S.  III!.  1.  ii.  p.  11.  ad  Connt. 

I     S.  Ilil.  1.  ii.  lit-  Trill.  §  2*2,  p.  45.  Edit.  Wirccb. 

I     Binhop  reafHon  on  the  Creed.     Art.  ijc.  p.  515. 


LETTER  XVIL 

ST  BASIL  THE  GREAT. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

I  pass  with  you  to  St  Basil,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  to  whose 
works  you  assign  the  date  A.D.  370.  Your  first  quotation  is 
from  his  second  book  against  the  Apologetic  of  Eunomius,  in 
which  he  observes,  that  the  names  of  individuals  designate  the 
distinction  of  their  persons  and  qualities,  but  not  the  difference 
of  their  nature.  He  illustrates  this  remark,  by  referring  to 
Peter,  the  mention  of  whose  name  immediately  suggests  to  us 
his  distinctive  qualities  :  "  Immediately,"  says  he,  "  on  hear- 
ing this  word,  we  understand  Peter  the  son  of  Jonas,  of  Beth- 
saida,  the  brother  of  Andrew,  who,  from  a  fisherman,  was 
called  to  the  function  of  the  apostolate  ;  who,  on  account  of 
the  excellence  of  his  faith,  received  upon  himself  the  edifice 
of  the  Church."*  This  passage  clearly  establishes  the  fact, 
that  Peter  is  distinguished  from  all  others,  inasmuch  as  he  was 
made  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  in  reward  of  his  divinely 
inspired  confession.  As  his  faith  was  eminent,  so  was  his  pri- 
vilege peculiar. — "  We  see  here,"  you  say,  "  the  oft  repeated 
fact,  that  Peter  was  the  first  foundation-stone  in  the  building  of 
the  Church,  because  he  was  the  first  to  acknowledge  his  Re- 
deemer." This,  however,  is  not  the  reason  assigned  by  the 
illustrious  bishop  of  Caesarea.  He  says,  that  "  on  account  of 
the  excellence  of  his  faith,  he  received  on  him  the  edifice  of 


•     S.  Basil,  contra  Apol.  Eun.  lib.  ii.    Tom.  I.  p.  240.    Edit.  Bened. 
Paris,  p.  322.  Basil  edit. 


DIPTVCHS.  219 

the  Church.""^  He  does  not  distinguish  him  as  the  first  foiin- 
daiionslone  ;  but,  with  reference  to  the  metaphor  used  by  our 
Lord,  he  says,  that  he  received  the  editlce  on  Ijimself,  as  tlie 
foundation  receives  the  material  building.  You  think  he  should 
have  said,  that  Peter  was  called  to  the  government  of  the 
apostolate,  had  he  received  superior  authority;  but  I  need  not 
tell  you,  that  the  highest  ruler  \\\  the  Church  is  but  the  minis- 
ter of  Christ. 

The  extract  given  by  you  from  tlie  liturgy  bearing  the  name 
of  Basil,  in  \vliich  prayer  is  oflered  for  the  bishop  of  Alexan- 
ilria,  and  not  for  the  Pope,  oilers  no  evidence  against  the  Pri- 
macy. At  Caesarea  the  prayer  must  have  been  rather  for  the 
bishop  of  Anliocli,  to  wliose  patriarchal  authority  it  was  subject. 
But  the  omission  of  prayer  for  the  Pope  is  sulliciently  account- 
ed for  by  the  use  of  tlie  diptychs^  or  sacred  tablets,  on  which 
the  name  of  the  reigning  PontifT  was  invariably  inscribed,  so 
that  when  Acacius,  tlie  heretic  bishop  of  Constantinople,  to- 
wards the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  presumed  to  cancel  from 
them  the  name  of  Felix,  who  then  held  the  chair  of  Peter,  the 
act  was  regarded  as  the  climax  of  impiety.  Nicephorus,  the 
Church  historian,  speaking  of  it  on  the  authority  of  Basil  of 
Cilicia,  describes  it  as  an  act  of  frenzy. t  The  names  even  of 
the  deceased  Popes  were  preserved  on  these  tablets,  as  is  ga- 
thered from  the  letter  of  the  Emperor  Constanlinc  Pogonatus 
to  Pope  Domnus,  in  which  he  states  the  wish  of  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  to  cancel  from  the  diptychs  the  name  of 
Pope  Viialian,  on  account  of  the  disscntions  that  had  arisen  in 
regard  to  Moiiollielism.  Yet  liiough  the  memory  of  Ilonorius 
was  clouded  by  the  suspicion  either  of  favour  to  the  rising 
heresy,  or  negligence  in  suppressing  it,  still  the  patriarch  liim- 

TQ1  im  T*(  irineic  i/^t^oX"*  **  **uror  rut  iiM.oio/uin¥  txc  tKK\Hriaii 
Si^Afjt%iii,  Adv.  Kunoiii.  lib.  ii.  Bishop  Hopkins  translates  it:  ^^  be- 
cause he  stood  be/lire  others  in  faith."  Tliis  neitlier  expresses  the  text, 
nor  the  Latin  ycTH\nn  Jldr  pnrstnbat. 

\  Nin-phoruH,  1.  xvi.  c.  17.  "  Acacium  usque  adeo  condeninationein 
eain  non  reapexisse,  ut  niente  scnsuque  orani  captus,  primus  ipsr  rapti! 
nomcn  e  aacro  albo  excmcrit." 


220  ST  BASIL  THE  GREAT. 

self  observed,  that  his  name  was  retained  through  reverence  for 
the  Apostolic  throne  of  ancient  Rome."*  The  emperor  re- 
sisted the  attempt  to  cancel  the  name  of  Vitalian.  In  the  canon 
of  the  mass,  according  to  the  Latin  rite,  there  is  no  more  than 
the  simple  mention  of  the  name  of  the  Pope,  the  priest  praying 
for  the  Catholic  Church,  "  togeliier  with  thy  servant  our  Pope 
Gregory,"  so  that  this  usage  corresponds  with  that  of  the  an- 
cient diptychs.  No  argument,  therefore,  can  be  derived  from 
the  omission  of  a  special  prayer  for  the  Pope  in  the  liturgy  of 
Basil.  Neither  is  the  prayer  for  the  patriarcli  any  evidence 
against  the  Primacy  ;  because  it  became  the  foithful  specially 
to  pray  for  him  to  whom  they  were  more  immediately  subject, 
and  who  was  watching  over  them,  "  being  to  render  an  ac- 
count to  God  for  their  souls."  The  term,  "  Pope,"  applied 
in  the  prayer  to  the  patriarch,  is  conformable  to  ancient  usage, 
which  gave  this  title  indiscriminately  to  the  highest  members 
of  the  hierarchy,  and  is,  confessedly,  no  criterion  whereby  the 
authority  of  the  person  so  named  is  to  be  determined.  Where 
terms  are  ambiguous,  or  are  variously  used  in  different  ages, 
the  power  of  the  officers  to  whom  they  are  applied  must  be 
learned  from  other  sources.  All  the  learned  agree  that  the 
Greek  terms  denoting  "bishop"  and  "  priest"  were  at  first  in- 
discriminately used  ;  would  you  admit  this  to  be  a  proof  of  an 
equality  of  power  ? 

The  long  passage  which  you  have  given  from  St  Basil's  pre- 
face to  his  moral  treatise,  styled  "  On  the  Judgment  of  God,'''' 
relates  to  the  dissentions  caused  by  the  Anomaeans,  and  other 
Arian  heretics.  You  observe,  that  the  original  Greek  signifies 
those  "  who  were  unlike  each  other;"  but  you  know  that  the 
term  was  applied  in  a  far  different  sense,  to  those  Arians  who 
denied  that  the  Son  was  like  in  nature  to  the  Father.  When 
the  saint  speaks  of  such  prelates  as  being  in  the  Church  of 
God,  he  must  be  understood  of  those  who  did  not  avow  the 

*  ^£tO-;tOVT6f  OvODpiOy  /UVUJUOVil/iO-B'OLl  iV  TO/f  SlTTTV^OiC  Si:t  TDV  Tly.HV 
ToZ     CtTTOTOKlKH     •3'fOVK     TJ*;    7rpi7 ^VTif^ti;     Vu/LiU^.        Ep.      Const.      Ill     ActlS.     D, 

Cone.  Tom.  HI.  Hard. 


ordi:r  of  the  cml'rch.  221 

heretical  setuimcnls  which  ihey  secretly  cherished  ;  or  he  re- 
gards the  Episcopal  character  which  they  had  received,  and  the 
aialion  which  ihey  occupied  :  whilst  in  reality,  as  he  attests, 
*' they  cruelly  strove  to  tear  the  Church  in  pieces,  and  ihev 
harassed  the  llock  violently  and  atrociously,  so  that  in  them, 
doubtless,  at  that  time  the  prediction  of  the  Apostle  was  ac- 
complished, this  new  heresy  being  cherished  in  their  minds  : 
*  or  your  own  selves  men  will  arise  speaking  perverse  things, 
to  lead  away  disciples  after  them.'  "*  All  the  evils  which 
arose  from  the  intrigues  of  the  Arian  bisjiops,  he  justly  ascribes 
to  their  rejection  of  the  Omnipotent  King  atui  (Jod,  Jesus 
Christ,  and  to  the  abandonment  of  his  doctrine.  This  is  the 
sum  and  substance  of  what  he  says,  adding:  "  lor  I  perceived 
that  in  any  njultitude,  discipline  ant!  harmony  are  usually  pre- 
served, as  long  as  all  agree  to  obey  the  authority  of  one  j)rince  : 
and  on  the  contrary,  dissentions  and  discord,  and  a  numi)er  of 
rulers  arise,  when  there  is  no  one  who  has  supreme  command  : 
and  this  I  perceived,  even  in  a  collection  of  bees,  who,  by  an 
instinct  of  nature,  follow  their  king: — If  order  of  discipline 
and  harmony  are  found  in  those  who  depend  on  the  will  of 
one,  and  obey  one  king,  doubtless  all  disturbance,  and  all  dis- 
cord are  proofs  that  there  is  no  one  to  govern. "t  All  this  is 
intelligible  enough  to  any  one  acquainted  with  the  history  of 
those  times,  and  the  actions  and  writings  of  this  great  doctor  of 
the  Church.  The  faith  of  the  Church  was  one  :  all  its  bishops 
harmonized  in  maintaining  the  Nicene  symbol:  there  was  one 
ruler  in  it,  governing  in  the  name  of  Christ.  Hut  there  were 
also  many  bishops  secretly  infected  with  Arianism,  or  notori- 
ously avowing  it,  who  were  irUruded  into  the  places  of  Catlio- 
lic  prelates.  They  dissented  Irom  the  faith  of  the  Nicene  Fa- 
thers, and  they  were  at  endless  variance  among  themselves, 
seeking  to  disguise,  from  others,  and  from  themselves,  in  a 
variety  of  ways,  the  heresy  which  they  sustained,  contrary  to 
the  Divine  Scriptures,  as  expountled  and  dec-lared  at  Nice.      It 

•     Protpm   Dc  judicio  Dei,  p.  1M3.  Edit.  Col   ;>   r.V2    Kdit    Ho-hiI 
t     Ibid. 


222  ST  BASIL  THE  GREAT. 

was  embarrassing  for  a  youth,  or  even  for  a  man  of  maliire  age, 
to  see  this  division  among  bisliops  ;  but  Basil  traced  the  evil  to 
its  source,  and  saw  that  it  was  the  judgment  of  God  on  those 
who  denied  the  Lord  who  bought  them.  Though  in  the  pass- 
age in  question  no  distinct  reference  is  made  to  the  council, 
or  to  the  Pope,  yet  as  the  dogma  itself  was  that  which  the 
council  defined,  and  which  the  bishops  in  communion  with  the 
See  of  Peter  defended,  there  is  an  implicit  reference  which  the 
comparisons  adduced  by  the  saint  strongly  sustain. 

His  remarks,  that  he  had  been  from  his  childhood  instructed 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  in  the  perplexity  of  his  mind,  occa- 
sioned by  the  dissentions  which  he  witnessed,  he  adverted  to 
the  truth  which  he  recognised  in  the  divine  writings,  are  quite 
in  harmony  with  his  known  devotedness  to  the  Nicene  faith. 
When  we,  at  this  day,  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  as  affording 
manifest  proofs  of  the  Eucharistic  mystery — when,  amidst  the 
wanderings  of  the  mind,  or  the  sophisms  of  unbelievers,  we 
sustain  ourselves  by  calling  to  our  recollection  the  words  of 
Jesus  Christ, — we  surely  do  not  speak  or  think  in  any  way  in- 
consistent with  our  belief  in  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  or  of 
councils.  The  saint  had  not  undertaken,  here,  to  explain  by 
what  means  revealed  truth  could  be  ascertained  amidst  the 
conflicts  of  opinion,  or  what  authority  had  been  left  by  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remedy  of  schism ;  but  he  meant  to  moralize, 
and  to  show  how  the  judgments  of  God  are  provoked  by  that 
species  of  sin  which  is  directed  immediately  against  himself. 
In  treating  the  subject,  he  makes,  however,  very  intelligible 
reference  to  the  authority  which  God  has  placed  in  the  Church, 
and  which  all  should  obey. 

*'It  is,"  says  Basil,  "  worthy  of  our  attention,  how  great  is 
the  indignation  which  the  Divine  Scripture  manifests  against 
such  as  hearken  not  to  the  decree  of  the  priest  or  judge.  '  He 
that  will  be  proud,  and  refuse  to  obey  the  commandment  of  the 
priest  who  ministereth  at  that  time  to  the  Lord  thy  God,  or  the 
judge  who  shall  be  in  those  days,  that  man  shall  die,  and  thou 
shalt  take  away  the  evil  from  the  midst  of  Israel ;  and  all  the 
people  hearing  it  shall  fear,  and  they  shall  not  afterwards  do 


PtTER  I'RKl  EKKKD.  223 

impiously.'  From  which  words  wo  may  easily  Miulcrsland 
liow  solicitous  wc  should  be,  and  how  greatly  wc  should  Tear. 
♦Bringing,'  says  the  Apostle,  'into  captivity,  to  the  obedience 
of  Christ,  every  understanding,'  not  this  or  tliat  one:  *  and  hav- 
ing in  readint'ss  to  revenue  all  disobedience.'  "  He  refers  sub- 
sequently to  the  punishment  of  Ananias,  in  regard  of  which 
he  says  :  **  What  did  Peter  do,  I'.ie  executioner  of  so  awful  a 
judgment,  the  indignant  minister  of  the  decree  of  God  against 
the  author  of  the  sin  ?  That  hlkssed  one,  who  was  preferred 
TO  THE  other  DISCIPLES,  and  who  alone  received  a  testimony 
above  all  the  others,  and  was  pronounced  blessed,  rather  than 
all  the  others,  and  to  whom  the  keys  of  the  heavenly  king- 
dom WERE  ENTRisTED."*  'I'licsc  passages,  wliicli  are  taken 
from  the  very  work  Iroin  which  you  have  drawn  your  object- 
ion, prove  that  Basil  acknowledged  that  Peter  had  received, 
in  a  special  manner,  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and 
the  previous  mention  of  the  authority  of  the  high  priest  under 
the  old  law,  warrants  the  inference  that  he  ascribed  to  Peter 
ihe  right  of  definitive  judgment.  You  will  now,  perhaps,  be 
able  to  answer  some  of  the  questions  which  you  iiave  put  to 
us  ;  since  you  plainly  see,  that  there  is  reference  to  the  appoint- 
ed and  authoritative  mode  of  terminating  the  divisions  which 
the  pride  of  man  creates,  by  judging  of  the  mysteries  of  faith, 
without  regard  to  the  teaching  of  that  tribunal  which  Christ 
established.  Were  there  no  such  tribunal,  in  vain  would  Basil 
have  exhorted  the  fiitliful  to  be  subject  to  the  heavenly  king, 
since  men  would  still  deny  his  divine  attributes,  however  clearly 
Uiey  might  appear  to  be  marked  in  the  Sacred  Writings. 

The  letter  of  St  liasil  to  Si  Alhanasius,  in  which  he  entreats 
liim  to  urge  the  l)ishoi)s  of  the  West  to  use  their  inlluence  with 
the  emperor  Valens,  does  not  make  any  special  reference  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  l)ut  in  all  ecclesiastical  concerns,  especi- 


•  r.  246,  Edit.  Colon.  "  Illr  in«|iiatu  t)oatu9,  qtii  ct  en  lor'.H  nntelatus 
disciptibs  fuil,  cuiquo  mnjjnifirfntiiis  quani  rcliqiiis  t>mnibus  dnttiin  Irs- 
tiinonium  rst,  inagLsqur  quam  reli(jui  «)inno8  bcatus  appellatus,  cui  clave« 
regni  coulestifl  commiMS." 


224  ST  BASIL  THE  GREAT. 

ally  of  the  Western  church,  he  was  always  included,  as  will 
appear  from  another  letter.  The  Arian  emperor,  however,  was 
not  likely  to  be  moved  by  his  individual  authority,  but  rather 
by  the  great  number  of  the  bishops  who  might  address  him, 
whicii  the  saint  aptly  calls,  "  the  authority  of  the  multitude."* 
In  a  case  of  this  kind,  where  the  person  to  be  addressed  was 
an  alien  from  the  faith,  it  would  be  idle  to  urge  the  individual 
power  of  the  Roman  Bishop  ;  but  the  remonstrances  and  peti- 
tions of  many  might  prove  efficacious. 

When  addressing  Athanasius  with  a  view  to  procure  the  ex- 
tirpation of  heresy,  and  the  correction  of  scandals,  by  the  im- 
mediate action  of  the  proper  ecclesiastical  authority,  Basil  dis- 
tinctly specifies  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who,  though  accustomed 
in  matters  of  importance  to  act  with  the  concurrence  of  his  col- 
leagues assembled  in  synod,  radically  possessed  all  the  power 
necessary  for  the  wants  of  the  churches.  "  It  appears  to  me 
proper,"  says  he,  "  that  a  letter  should  be  written  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  that  he  may  take  into  consideration  what  has  here 
taken  place,  and  decree;!  and  since  it  is  difficult  that  any  per- 
sons should  be  sent  thence  by  a  common  and  synodical  decree, 
he,  himself,  using  his  authority  in  this  case,  may  choose  men 
able  to  support  the  fatigue  of  the  journey,  and  also  calculated, 
by  the  meekness  and  facility  of  their  disposition,  to  correct 
those  amongst  us  who  are  crooked  and  perverse  ;  tempering 
their  discourse  aptly  and  providently,  and  bringing  with  them 
all  the  documents  of  what  has  been  done  for  the  necessary  re- 
scinding of  the  acts  of  Rimini. — Some  there,  also,  desire,  and, 
as  we  think,  properly,  that  when  they  come  they  should  ex- 
press their  execration  of  the  heresy  of  Marcellus,  as  evil  and 
pernicious,  and  opposed  to  sound  faith. — And  when  those  who 
may  be  sent  shall  arrive,  with  the  divine  blessing,  let  them  not 
occasion  schisms  in  the  churches  ;  but  rather  let  them  draw  to 
unity  by  every  means  those  who  entertain  the  same  sentiments, 

*  Letter  xlviii.  p.  415.  <'  Qui  rerum  potiuntur  multitudinis  auto- 
ritate  permoveantur." 


SIGNAL  FACT.  225 

althoiij[Th  they  may  meet  with  some  who  may  allo^o  peculiar 
•^rounds  of  clisseiiiioii ;  lest  they  separate  the  orthodox  people 
from  their  prelaii's,  and  divide  them  into  many  parties.  For 
care  must  he  taken  that  all  ihinirs  must  he  sacrificed  to  peace  : 
and  especially  thai  the  churcli  of  Antioch  be  healed,  lest  in  that 
sincere  (orthodox)  church  a  portion,  becoming  weak  through 
personal  attaclimenls,  he  cut  off."*  In  this  you  cannot  find  a 
sentence  to  warrant  our  doctrine,  though  the  saint  solicits  the 
exertion  of  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,t  independently 
of  any  synod — an  authority  sufficient,  in  his  mind,  to  heal  the 
wounds  of  the  patriarchal  cliurch  of  Antioch. 

Basil  gives  a  signal  instance  of  the  exercise  of  that  author- 
ity which  was  admitted  by  an  oriental  svnod,  thous[h  the 
Fathers  were  conscious  that  the  Pope  had  been  deceived  by 
the  wiles  of  the  heretical  bishop,  Eustathius,  whose  character 
he  depicts  in  dark  colours.  'J'hisman  having  been  deposed  for 
heresy  and  other  crimes  in  the  synod  of  iMelite,  devised  a  plan 
for  recovering  his  station,  namely,  to  have  recourse  to  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Pontiff:  *'What  was  proposed  to  him," 
says  Basil,  •♦  by  the  most  blessed  bishop  Liberius,  and  what  he 
consented  to,  we  know  not;  but  he  brought  back  with  him  a 
letter  directing  that  he  should  be  restored,  and  having  present- 
ed it  to  the  synod  at  Tyana,  he  was  replaced  in  his  station. *':J^ 
This  surely  was  a  manifest  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  Pon- 
tiff to  rescind  by  his  authority  the  judgment  of  the  synod: 
since  it  was  respected,  though  exercised  on  false  information. 

After  so  many  testirtionies  and  evidences  of  the  authority  of 
the  Holy  See,  I  scarcely  need  notice  your  attempt  to  derive  an 
argument  from  expressions  used  by  Basil  in  regard  to  Antioch, 
and  other  churches.  In  exciting  the  zeal  of  Athanasius  to 
cause  the  Western  bishops  to  aid  in  the  settlement  of  the  dis- 
sentions  of  Antioch,  he  dwells  on  the  great  importance  of  that 
See,  and  observrs,  that  ;is  n  sKilful  physician  attends,  in  the  lirst 

*    Epittt.  lii.  ad  Aliian.  p  41G. 
X    Lc-ttrr  71,  p.  r-iir 


226 


ST  BASIL  THE  GREAT. 


instance,  to  the  more  dangerous  disorders,  afiecting  the  princi- 
pal parts,  so  should  the  cure  of  Antioch  be  first  effected,  that, 
like  a  sound  head,  it  niiglit  impart  health  to  the  whole  body. 
This  might  be  said  of  that  patriarchal  See,  which  was  the  most 
important  church  then  labouring  under  the  malady  of  schism, 
by  reason  of  the  contentions  of  the  friends  of  Eustathius  and  Me- 
letius.  When,  however,  he  addresses  tlie  bishops  of  the  West, 
he  uses  language  which  can  only  be  applied  to  Damasus,  their 
head,  as  well  as  the  head  of  all  the  churches  :  ''Since,  then,  the 
head  cannot  say  to  the  feet  I  have  no  need  of  you,  neither  will 
you  reject  us." — After  the  statement  of  the  desolation  of  the 
churches,  he  adds  :  "Think  not  that  we  speak  thus  with  a 
view  to  teach  you,  or  excite  your  diligence,  for  we  know  that 
you  never  forget  us,  no  more  than  a  mother  forgets  the  chil- 
dren of  her  womb.  Stretch  forth  your  hands  to  the  churches 
that  are  tossed  by  the  storm,  lest  being  entirely  abandoned  they 
suffer  shipwreck.  It  was  fit  that  many  *of  us  should  hasten 
to  your  Reverence,  and  that  each  one  should  be  the  reporter 
of  his  own  affairs  and  sufferings."* 

WHien  addressing  the  clergy  of  the  church  of  Nicopolis,  he 
warns  them,  as  you  observe,  not  to  indulge  in  strife  with  their 
mother,  the  church  of  Nicopolis,  and  calls  this  church  a  ten- 
der mother, — the  nurse  of  piety;  but  who  does  not  perceive 
the  propriety  of  these  terms,  and  that  they  involve  no  compa- 
rison with  other  churches?  Each  particular  church  is  a  mother 
to  the  clergy  and  faithful  witliin  her  limits:  each  church  that 
has  sent  forth  Apostolic  men  to  etablish  other  churches  may  be 
styled  mother  in  their  regard:  each  church  of  higher  dignity 
is  a  mother  of  the  subordinate  churches ;  but  the  Roman 
Church  is  the  mother  of  all  churches,  by  reason  of  her  autho- 
rity, and  of  that  tender  solicitude  which  Basil  has  so  affectingly 
described. 

You  here  introduce  a  rule  of  St  Basil  concerning  the  bap- 
tism administered  by  heretics,  with  a  view  to  prove  that  he 
disregarded  the  authority  of  the  Roman  See.      In  his  letter  to 

*     Ep.  Ixx.  p.  G70. 


•  COUNCIL  OF  NICE.  227 

Ampliilocliiiis  he  slates,  that  cerlaiii  heretics,  wljo  did  nut  use 
the  iiivoi-aiion  of  l!ic  Trinity,  siiouUl  by  all  means  be  baj)lised, 
on  coinin<^  to  the  Cliurch.      In   lliis  lie  is  in  pcrlcct  liarniony 
witli  the  decree  of  Pope  Stephen,  whicli  regarded  those  wiio, 
in  baptism,  invoked  the  Trinity.     He  makes  reference  to  ilie 
opinion  of  Cyprian  and  Firmilian,  wlio  rejected  baptism  admi- 
nistered by  heretics,  even  though  the  rite  were  strictly  observ- 
ed; but  adds,  that  since  it  appeared  riglu  to  many  Asiatic  bishops 
that    those  baptized    in   the  regular  way  sliould   be   received 
into    the  Church    without  a  new  baptism,  through  a  motive 
of   economy  and  dispensation, — by  whicli  he  seems  to  mean 
prudential  considerations  connected  with  the  harmony  of  the 
prelates,  and  peace  of  the  Church, — let  them  be  received.     In 
this,  likewise,  he  assents  to  the  practice   which  Stephen  had 
inculcated.      With  regard   to  tlie  Encrutites  he  observes,  that 
as    nothing  had   been   clearly   determined    in   their  regard,  he 
thinks  no  account  should  be  had  of  their  baptism,  for  reasons 
peculiar    to  this  sect  :    but  in    case  a  contrary  usage   some- 
where prevailed,  he  does  not  insist  on  this,  to  the  prejudice 
of  harmony.     This    is   the  substance   of  the   first  canon,   or 
rule,  as  given  in  the  translation  of  (Jentian  Ilervelus.*     In  it 
there  is  nolliing  in  direct  opposition  with  the  principle  laid 
down  by  Stephen,  as  the  whole  question  is  reduced  to  the  case 
of  the  Encrutites,  on  which  special  case  no  decree  had  emana- 
ted, and  whose  mode  of  baptizing  may  not  have  been  ascer- 
tained with  certainly.     The  version  which  yon  used  must  have 
given  a  difierent  meaning. 

The  mode  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  Council  of  Nice  seems 
to  you  inconsistent  with  the  high  authority  which  we  ascribe 
to  a  General  Council.  lie  says,  indeed,  that  those  who  reject 
the  term  ♦'  consubstantial,"  sanctioned  by  those  Fathers,  are 
censurable,  though  some  may  be,  in  some  degree,  excused  on 
account  of  their  not  understanding  it  correctly,  especially  as 
they  heard  it  fiercely  assailed.  Vou  a.sk  :  "  Did  Basil  ihink 
that  the  Nicene  creed  was  inspired  ?" — Neiih.er  do  we  deem  it 

•    Edit.  Col.  p.  5C0. 


228  ST  BASIL  THE  GREAT. 

such,  in  the  sense  in  which  inspiration  is  strictly  applied  to 
Scripture.  He  believed,  as  we  do,  that  the  dogma  defined  by 
the  Fathers  and  declared  in  that  creed,  was  a  revealed  truth, 
whicli  they  were  divinely  assisted  to  define,  and  to  propound 
correctly.  In  this  consisted  tiieir  unerring  authority.  He  be- 
lieved them  further  empowered  to  express  that  dogma  by  a 
term  which  they  should  deem  best  calculated  to  meet  all  the 
cavillings  of  heretics,  and  to  make  its  profession  in  that  way 
a  necessary  condition  of  Churcli  communion.  This  exercise 
of  autiiority  resulting  from  the  governing  power  of  the  Church, 
and  from  the  ciiarge  given  her  to  guard  the  divine  deposite  of 
revelation,  is  closely  connected  with  her  right  to  define,  and 
commands  the  respect  of  all  her  children.  'J'iiere  may  be  cir- 
cumstances, however,  that  extenuate,  in  some  degree,  the  fault 
of  those  who,  holding  the  doctrine  in  all  sincerity  of  heart, 
might  regret  the  adoption  of  a  term  which  had  become  the  sub- 
ject of  fierce  disputation.  This  is  all  that  the  holy  doctor 
teaches.  Not  only  did  he  repeat  the  creed  of  Nice,  with  the 
anathema  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Cjjurch  against  those 
who  deny  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  true  God  of  true 
God,  but  he  added,  "  according  to  this  formulary  we  cling  to 
the  faith  of  the  Church  :"*  and  he  proved  his  faitli  by  his  suffer- 
ings, which  he  has  so  eloquently  pourtrayed,  in  giving  us  the 
picture  of  the  desolation  caused  by  Arian  impiety. 

In  the  passage  wincii  you  have  quoted  from  his  epistle  to 
Cyriacus,  you  have  a  splendid  evidence  of  his  profound  vene- 
ration for  the  formulary  of  laith  adopted  by  the  Ni(;ene  coun- 
cil. Ho  exhorts  the  faithful  at  Tarsus  to  "  profess  the  faith 
set  forlli  by  our  fathers  wlio  ("onnerly  came  together  at  Nice, 
and  not  to  reject  a  word  of  it,  but  to  be  convinced  that  these 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  Fathers,  who,  without  dissention, 
agreed  on  that  formulary,  had  so  spoken  not  without  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Holy  Spirit. "t  You  understand  by  this,  no  more 
than  iIk;  ordinary  tiid  of  divine  grace  whereby  the  faith  is  pro- 
fessed by  any  individual :   because  "  no  man  can  say  :  Lord 

*     Ep.  Ix.  Eccl.  Antioch.  t     P.  207.  rar.ed. 


ASSISTANCE  OF  TIIK   IIOl.Y  OIIOST.  2*29 

Jesus,  but  by  llie  Holy  Ghost."*  liul  surely,  there'  wns  no 
need  of  such  solemn  asseveration  to  prove  that  ihe  I'aihers  had 
such  aid  as  all  receive.  How  vain  are  all  the  efTorls  of  human 
ingenuity  to  evade  the  expressions  of  this  illustrioiis  doctor! 
He  speaks  evidently  of  an  extraordinary  light  from  above,  sucli 
as  that  which  authorized  the  first  council  to  say:  *' It  hath 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  (ihost  and  to  us:"  he  speaks  of  that 
special  assistance  which  Jesus  Christ  promised  the  pastors  of 
his  Church,  in  the  person  of  the  Apostles,  when  he  said  :  •'  I 
will  ask  the  Father,  and  he  will  give  you  another  paraclete, 
that  he  may  abide  wiih  you  for  ever:  the  Spirit  of  truth;!" 
♦♦  ho  will  tearli  you  all  things,  and  will  bring  to  your  mind  all 
things  whatsoever  I  shall  have  said  to  you."| — When  he  inti- 
mates that  the  explicit  profession  of  the  divinity  of  this  Holy 
Spirit  should  follow  the  creed,  he  does  not  suppose  any  error, 
or  neglect,  on  the  part  of  the  Nicene  Fathers  ;  but  the  temerity 
of  man  having,  subseciuenlly  to  the  holding  of  the  council,  as- 
sailed the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was  proper  to  give 
Him,  in  the  most  express  manner,  that  homage  which  was  al- 
ready implied  in  the  simple  words  of  the  symbol.  'J'hesc  Fa- 
thers had  added  nothing  to  its  meaning,  when  they  declared 
i!ie  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  ;  for  from  the  commencement 
of  the  Church  he  was  always  believed  and  adored  as  the  True 
God,  as  well  as  Saviour  :  nor  did  the  faiihfid  detract  from  their 
authority,  when,  to  express  their  horror  of  a  new  blasphemy, 
they  proclaimed  aloud,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  no  creature  ; 
but  the  same  God  as  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

"     1  Cor.  xii.  3.  (     John  liv.  IC.  \     John  xiv.  2(3. 


LETTER  XVIIL 

ST  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUM. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

The  intimate  friendship  that  existed  between  St  Basil  and 
St  Gregory  of  Nazianzura,  has  led  you  to  subjoin  the  testi- 
nriony  of  the  latter  to  that  of  the  eloquent  bishop  of  Caesarea. 
Your  introductory  passage  is  from  his  twenty-sixth  discourse, 
in  which  he  shows,  that  order  is  perceivable  in  all  the  works  of 
creation,  and  in  the  human  body  in  particular; — in  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  and  in  the  Church  ;  whence  he  infers  that  all  ought 
not  to  take  on  themselves  to  discuss  the  mysteries  of  faith,  still 
less  should  they  indulge  a  bitter  and  unrestrained  spirit  of  con- 
tention. His  remarks  are  pungent  indeed  :  "  If  we  chance," 
says  he,  "  to  acquire  triflino-  fame,  or  not  even  this  oftentimes, 
but  if  we  have  got  by  heart  two  or  three  passages  of  Scripture, 
and  these  in  a  mutilated  way,  and  without  attention  to  their 
meaning — with  this  knowledge  attained  in  a  day,  and  like  that 
of  the  tower-builders  at  Chalan  [Babel),  where  the  tongues 
were  divided,  we  rise  up  senselessly  in  revolt  against  Moses, 
and  we  become  contumelious  and  impious,  like  Dathan  and 
Abiron,  whose  arrogance  we  should  avoid,  and  not  imitate 
their  frenzy,  lest  we  meet  with  their  end.  Do  you  wish  that 
I  should  present  you  with  another  instance  of  order,  one  wor- 
thy of  praise,  and  also  worthy  of  being  mentioned  and  seriously 
considered  on  the  present  occasion?  Do  you  see  that  among 
the  discii)les  of  Christ,  all  of  whom  were  sublime  and  worthy 
of  their  election,  one  is  called  a  rock,  and  is  entrusted  with  the 
foundations  of  tiie  Church  ;  another  is  loved  more,  and  rests 
on  the  breast  of  Jesus  ;  and  the  others  bear  patiently  the  prefer- 


I'IMKR  THK   ROCK.  231 

ence/'*  The  use  of  the  lerin  "  chicresl,"  in  your  iiaiislalion 
of  llii;?  passage,  is  liable  lo  exception,  as  the  ori<fiiial  term,  and 
its  Laliti  version,  is  in  the  positive  degree,  and  siiould  be  ren- 
dered *'  bigl>"  or  sublime. t  The  obscurity  of  the  phrase  "  re- 
ceives in  faith  the  foundation  of  the  Church,"  is  scarcely  ex- 
cusable, and  still  less  your  version  given  in  the  note — *' be- 
lieves in  the  foundation  of  the  Church," — this  not  being  the 
meaning  of  the  author,  as  may  be  seen  below. j  The  ob- 
ject of  St  Gregory  being  to  show,  that  there  is  order  in  all 
things,  and  that  even  among  the  Apostles — all  of  wliom  were 
elevated  in  dignity  and  power,  and  were  worthy  of  their  high 
calling — this  order  was  established  ;  so  that  Peter  was  a  rock, 
and  was  specially  entrusted  with  the  foundation  of  the  Church, 
whilst  John  received  marks  of  special  love,  and  the  other  Apos- 
tles witnessed  and  bore  without  jealousy  the  privileges  and 
preference  of  the  favoured  two,  we  must  infer,  that  ]*eter  was 
specially  invested  with  authority,  as  John  was  specially  belov- 
ed. 'J'he  whole  scope  of  the  discourse  warrants  this  conclu- 
sion. When  he  asks,  "  where  is  austerity  observable  in  the 
mode  of  acting  of  the  Apostles  ?  where  lust  of  domination  ?§" 
he  only  shows  the  meekness  wliich  marked  their  exercise  of 

•     S.  Greg.  Naz.  20.  cd.  Colon,  an    1(>(>0.  t     C-^^Mhrnr. 

Bishop  lloj)kins  reads  tc/c  ^^tjuty^iitc — but  he  must  have  mistaken  the 
contracted  for  the  ordinary  Greek.  This  contraction  appears  in  the 
Paris  edition  of  1G30.  In  that  of  Cologne,  1 «»:)(),  there  is  no  contrac- 
tion. The  edition  of  Basle,  in  1550,  and  Sclielstrate  in  his  Antiqui- 
ties, have  tlie  same  readinfr^  wliich  is  the  only  one  which  the  con- 
text will  bear.  Bishop  Hopkins  says,  that  the  orirjinal  term  does  not 
warrant  the  Latin  viision.  With  jrreal  deference,  I  submit  that  it 
docfl,  for  •' Ecclesia;  fundamenta  in  fidem  suam  recipiat,"  means,  "  he 
takes  charge  of  the  foundations  of  the  Church,"  aa  may  be  seen  by  the 
use  of  the  phrase  in  /idem  recipere,  in  Cicero,  and  other  classical  au- 
thors. The  Greek  verb,  which,  in  the  active  voice,  means /o  belirrr,  or  to 
ifire  in  rfuirffr,  in  the  middle  and  passive  voices,  joined  with  the  accusa- 
tive, means  to  bt  chnrfrcd  or  cntruslrd  irith,  as  in  1  Cor.  ix.  17,  eiaero. 
juiur  ntrn-tvfjiai:  "a.  dispi-nHAtion  is  committed  unto  me."  See  Dioge- 
nes LaiTtiuH.l.  vii.  c.  1.  §  2'^,  Tifiu^ttrc(  mt  tt  \\tp')m./uf»  lii^Kn^tixtti 
**  brine  fntrustrd  tcith  the  rhar/rf  of  the  library  in  Pergamus." 


232  ST  GREGORY  OF  XAZIANZUM. 

authority,  and  the  submission  with  which  it  was  embraced.  In 
speaking  of  "  Peter,  John,  and  James,  as  being  before  the 
others,  and  being  regarded  as  such,"  he  does  not  establish  an 
equality  between  these  three  Apostles;  but  he  mentions  the 
peculiar  favour  shown  them,  and  he  specifies  particularly,  in 
regard  to  Peter,  what  that  favour  was,  since  ho  was  styled  the 
rock,  and  specially  entrusted  with  founding  and  establishing 
the  Church.  Hence,  he  calls  him  elsewliere  "  the  strength  or 
support*  of  the  Church" — "  the  most  honoured  of  the  disciples. "t 
When  St  Gregory,  in  speaking  of  the  virtues  of  his  departed 
father,!  dwells  on  his  faith,  and  on  the  glory  that  resulted  to 
the  church  of  Nazianzum,  from  his  administration,  no  one  can 
so  far  mistake  his  meaning,  as  to  suppose  that  he  is  asserting 
any  prerogative  for  that  church.  You  state,  that  he  styles 
"  the  church  of  Nazianzum  a  new^  Jerusalem,  an  ark  borne  on 
the  waters,"  and  *'  as  much  as  it  was  inferior  to  others  in  num- 
ber, so  much  did  it  surpass  them  in  celebrity,  resembling,  in 
this  respect,  Bethlehem,  which,  though  a  small  city,  was  yet 
the  metropolis  of  the  world."  All  this  is  true,  but  let  the  sen- 
tence be  read  entire,  and  its  meaning  will  be  manifest.  "That 
great  man  of  God,  and  truly  worthy  to  be  styled  a  theologian, 
entertaining  these  sentiments  (in  regard  to  the  Trinity), 
and  being  moved  by  the  Spirit  concerning  these  things,  what 
else  can  we  say,  than  that,  as  that  great  Noe  of  old,  the  father 
of  this  new  world,  he  caused  this  church  to  be  called  a  new 
Jerusalem,  and  an  ark  borne  on  the  waters  ?  And  this,  because  it 
raanifesdy  rose  above  the  deluge  of  souls,  and  the  malicious 
attacks  of  heretics  :  and  as  much  as  it  was  inferior  to  others  in 
the  number  [of  its  children),  so  much  did  it  surpass  them  in 
celebrity  ;  resembling,  in  this  respect,  Bethlehem,  which,  al- 
though a  small  city,  was  yet  the  metropolis  of  the  world,  being 
the  nurse  and  mother  of  Christ,  who  made  and  overcame  the 


*  risT/joy — TO  Tiff  gxxx»<r/*f  i/!£/o-^st.  Apolog.  ad  Patrem.  Orat.  vii.  p. 
141. 

t      Uirpa   TH  ri/utet^ATH  rav  /ua^nTtrv.  P.  157.  Orat.  ix. 

I  St  Gregory,  the  elder,  was  married  before  his  baptism,  and  long 
after  the  birth  of  his  son  Gregory,  was  elevated  to  the  priesthood. 


VIRTUES  OF  THK   ELDER  CREOORV.  233 

world."*  I  deem  it  quite  unnecessary  to  give  any  explanation 
of  this  oratorical  elFusion,  which,  as  every  one  sees,  is  not  di- 
rected to  set  forth  the  authority  of  tlie  ciiurch  of  Nazianzum, 
but  the  eminent  virtues  of  its  deceased  |)aslor.  'I'he  letter  of 
the  elder  Gregory,  to  wiiich  you  next  refer,  fully  confirms  what 
even  this  panegyric  implies,  that  Nazianzum  was  a  small  flock 
— a  Bethlehem,  whose  whole  glory  the  piety  of  the  son  attri- 
butes to  the  distinguished  zeal  of  the  father.  The  archiepiscopal 
dignity  of  the  church  of  Ca?sarea,  gave  it  far  greater  import- 
ance in  the  hierarchy,  and  hence  the  election  of  its  bishop  en- 
gaged all  the  solicitude  of  the  venerable  bishop  of  Nazianzum. 
He  wrote  to  the  people  of  that  church  during  its  vacancy,  and 
recommended  Basil  as  the  fit  person  to  be  chosen  for  that  See: 
**  Care,  indeed,  must  be  taken,"  says  he,  "  of  every  church, 
as  of  the  body  of  Christ,  but  especially  of  yours,  which  was 
from  the  beginning,  and  now  is,  and  is  considered,  the  mother 
of  almost  all  the  churches,  and  to  which  the  communityt  looks, 
as  a  circle  inscribed  around  a  centre,  not  only  on  account  of  its 
orthodoxy,  proclaimed  to  all  in  times  past,  but  also  for  the  gift 
of  harmony  granted  to  it  manifestly  by  God."  I  have  made 
this  translation  literally  from  the  original  which  now  lies  be- 
fore me,  because  I  find  you  avail  yourself  of  the  literary  flour- 
ish of  the  ordinary  version,  to  make  it  appear  that  Ca^sarea  was 
regarded  as  the  centre  of  the  whole  ('hrislian  world.;  No 
doubt  all  Christendom  felt  interested  that  the  metropolis  of 
Cappadocia  should  have  an  orthodox  bishop ;  but  the  churches 
which  were  in  its  vicinity,  and  were  subject  to  the  authority 
of  that  See,  whicli  was  the  mother  and  foundress  of  almost  all 
of  them,  fell  most  deeply  this  interest,  since  they  were  as  the 
radii  issuing  forth  from  her,  as  from  the  centre.  The  saint 
never  could  have  entertained  the  idea  that  a  metropolitan 
church,  subject  to  the  patriarchal  See  of  Antioch,  shoulil  be 


•     S.  Greg.  Naz.  Oral   xix.  p  *il)7   Edit.  Col. 

t      Tfic  «»  Ts  «c/f:»  0KtTu,  mc  «i»t;»   Kt/«A^   wtfiypa^iun^.   £p.  22, 
ad  Cesar.    P.  7ri5.  Edit.  Col. 

;     "  Ad  quam  tota  Rospublica  Christiana  oculos  conjicit." 


234  ST  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZU3I. 

regarded  as  the  mother  of  almost  all  churches  of  the  universe, 
and  the  centre  of  the  whole  Christian  commonwealth.  Basil 
has  beautifully  declared  which  Church  is  the  mother  of  all 
churches,  when  addressing  the  Roman  Church  in  behalf 
of  the  See  of  Caesarea,  and  the  other  Eastern  churches,  he  so 
touchingly  remarks,  "  that  he  is  convinced  she  does  not  forget 
them,  as  the  mother  forgets  not  the  children  of  her  womb." 

The  will  of  Gregory,  who  was  afterwards  transferred  to  the 
church  of  Constantinople,  begins  thus:  "I,  Gregory,  bishop 
of  the  Catholic  church,  which  is  in  the  city  of  Constantinople, 
have  consecrated  all  my  property  to  the  Catholic  church  at 
Nazianzum,  for  the  service  of  the  poor  belonging  to  the  said 
church."  You  remark  this  phrase,  in  order  to  deprive  us  of 
the  benefit  which  the  numerous  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  bring 
to  the  Catholic  cause ;  but,  I  conceive,  it  refutes  triumphantly 
a  hackneyed  objection  of  Protestants,  that  the  phrase,  "  Roman 
Catholic  Church,"  is  a  solecism.  Gregory  speaks  of  the 
Catholic  Church  in  a  particular  city,  without  destroying,  by 
this  limitation,  or  specification,  its  universal  character  as  a  por- 
tion of  the  orthodox  Church  spread  throughout  the  world. 
With  equal  propriety  we  can  speak  of  the  Catholic  Church  of 
Rome,  having  reference  to  the  principal  See,  with  which  all 
the  churches  communicate,  without  detracting  any  thing  from 
its  universal  character  or  authority.  It  is  to  offer  violence  to 
the  obvious  meaning  of  their  words,  to  suppose  that  the  Fathers 
spoke  of  any  other  Church  than  that  which  alone  is  orthodox, 
and  alone  universal,  "  because,"  as  St  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  so 
forcibly  remarks,  "  it  teaches,  without  imperfection  or  diminu- 
tion, all  truth,"  and  because  "  it  is  spread  throughout  the  world." 
This  passage  sufficiently  refutes  your  observation,  that  the 
Fathers — writing  at  the  time  when  the  world  was  said  to  be 
leagued  against  Athanasius, — did  not  mean,  by  Catholic  faith, 
the  faith  which  was  then  universal,  but  that  which  had  been 
universal  from  the  beginning.  Notwithstanding  the  persecu- 
tion which  that  champion  of  orthodoxy  endured,  and  the  appa- 
rent prevalence  of  Arianism,  from  the  violent  intrusion  of  Ari- 
ans  into  many  Sees,  the  faith  was  still  Catholic,  in  the  mean- 


ONE   FAITH.  235 

Ing  of  Cyril  and  the  other  Fathers,  because  it  was  in  reality 
spread  tliroii<;hout  tlie  world,  and  everywhere  professed  and 
taught  by  bishops  in  communion  with  the  See  of  Peter.  Hence, 
somewhat  later,  St  Auguslin  confounded  the  Donalisls  hy  the 
very  fact  of  their  sect  being  confined  to  a  corner  of  Africa — 
whilst  llie  Ciuircli  of  Christ,  according  to  the  divine  promises, 
is  necessarily,  in  all  ages  from  her  first  establishment,  Catholic, 
spreading  the  splendour  of  one  faith  from  the  rising  to  the  set- 
ting of  the  sun. 

The  distracted  state  of  Christendom,  which  Gregory,  in  the 
funeral  j)anegyric  of  Hasil,  so  graphically  describes,  does  not 
imply  any  diversity  of  faith  in  the  Ciiurch  itself.  'JMirough  the 
violence  of  the  Arian  emperor,  V'alens,  "  bishops  professing 
the  orthodox  faith  were  driven  from  the  churches ;  others  were 
intruded,  professing  the  pestilential  and  destructive  heresy  sup- 
ported by  the  emperor,"*  but  one  faith  was  common  to  all  those 
who  communicated  with  tlie  Apostolic  See  of  Peter,  as  Basil 
himself  testifies.  "  We  have  not,"  says  he,  '♦  a  different  faith 
at  Seleucia,  a  diflferent  one  at  Constantinople,  and  a  diflerent 
one  at  Zelis,  and  a  different  one  at  Lampsacus,  and  a  different 
one  at  Rome  ;  ami  that  formulary  which  is  now  used,  is  not 
different  from  the  preceding,  but  one  and  the  same."t  The 
calamities  which  afllicted  the  Church  arose  from  imperial  vio- 
lence and  Arian  intrigue.  There  was  no  freedom,  as  you  as- 
sert, claimed  or  exercised  by  any  of  the  portions  of  the  Church, 
to  take  any  course  different  from  that  which  the  Nicene  Fathers 
had  pointed  out,  and  whicji  the  See  of  Rome  laboured  to  main- 
tain. Gregory,  and  IJasil,  and  all  the  illustrious  bishops  of  that 
age,  spent  themselves,  and  suffered  in  defence  of  that  faith  : 
whilst  false  bishops  yielded  to  the  will  of  Caesar,  or  employed 
his  power  to  disturb  llie  peace,  and  destroy,  were  it  possible, 
the  faith  of  the  Church,  'i'he  eloquent  panegyrist  aptly  styles 
their  faith,  **  the  imperial  pestilence. "+     You  may  now  under- 

•    Oral.  XX.  p.  :M7.  E.lil.  Col. 

t    S.  litutW,  Ep.  72,  p.  (171.  Basil. 

t    rti(  (iartKitii  Awmkuac.     P.  348.  Oral.  xx.  S.  Greg.  Na«. 


236  ST  GREGORY  OF  NAZIANZUM. 

stand  how,  notwithstanding  the  recognition  by  the  Catholic 
world  of  the  chieftancy  of  the  Roman  Bishop,  and  the  belief  of 
the  doctrine  expressed  in  the  symbol  of  Nice,  Christendom 
was  still  torn  to  pieces,  and  provinces  were  desolated  which 
once  had  been  the  chosen  vineyard  of  the  Lord.  A  wild  boar 
laid  them  waste.  No  Church  authority  could  subdue  the  ob- 
stinacy of  heresy  leagued  with  the  civil  power. 

The  sentiments  of  Gregory  in  regard  to  the  councils  of  his 
time,  which  you  gatiier  from  his  letter  to  Procopius,  are  not  in- 
consistent with  his  known  veneration  for  the  definitions  of  faith 
made  by  an  OEcumenical  Council.  During  the  greater  part  of  his 
public  career,  the  violence  and  intrigues  of  the  Arians  had  pre- 
vented any  happy  result  from  the  various  synods  that  had  been 
convened  ;  and  though  in  the  Council  of  Constantinople  the 
error  of  Macedonius  had  been  proscribed,  yet  even  there  the 
jealousies  and  contentions  of  some  bisliops  had  given  the  saint 
just  cause  of  pain.  Having  resigned  the  government  of  that 
church,  thus  to  remove  every  occasion  of  dissatisfaction,  he 
did  not  wish  to  abandon  his  retreat,  and  in  his  advanced  age 
take  part  in  the  proceedings  of  any  such  assembly.  You  pre- 
tend to  discover  his  true  sentiments  in  this  letter,  in  which 
he  declines  to  attend  a  council,  and  begs  of  Procopius  to  ex- 
cuse him  to  the  emperor,  especially  on  account  of  his  age  and 
infirmity  ;  as  if  you  would  insinuate  that  such  a  man  did  not 
always  profess  his  real  sentiments,  and  act  in  accordance  with 
them.  We  need  not  examine  the  private  letters  of  a  Gregory, 
or  a  Basil,  to  discover  their  true  sentiments,  for  throughout 
life  both  of  them  proved,  that  not  even  the  frowns  or  threats 
of  an  emperor  could  intimidate  them.  When,  then,  they 
avowed  their  unreserved  belief  in  the  Nicene  creed,  they  real- 
ly venerated  the  definition  of  an  GScumenical  Council:  and 
when  Gregory,  in  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  united  with 
his  colleagues  in  anathematizing  the  heresy  of  Macedonius,  he 
was  firmly  persuaded  that  God  had  charged  the  bishops  of  the 
church  to  guard  the  deposite  of  revelation,  and  that  such  doc- 
trinal definitions  as  are  the  expression  of  the  general  faith,  are 
pronounced   under  the  influence  of  divine  assistance.      That 


COUNCILS.  237 

council  was  not  indeed  a'cumenical,  but  it  was  a  larL'^e  col- 
lection of  oriental  bishops,  whose  faith  was  known  to  accord 
with  their  Western  colleagues  ;  and  its  act  was  a  n»easure 
adopted  on  the  spot  where  the  error  was  broached,  and  it  assu- 
med the  character  of  a  general  definition,  when  the  Western 
bishops  with  Daniasus  proclaimed  tlieir  failh  with  similar  so- 
lemnity. Gregory  had  never  been  in  a  council  strictly  cecu- 
menical  ;  but  had  this  last  council  been  such,  still  he  might 
have  said  with  regard  to  the  councils  of  his  time  in  general, 
that  he  had  never  witnessed  the  happy  termination  of  any  of 
them.  Such  general  expressions  would  not  necessarily  em- 
brace every  council  without  exception.  IJut  in  regard  to  Ge- 
neral Councils  themselves,  we  are  far  from  denying,  that  the 
members  of  them  are  liable  to  imperfection  and  sin.  We  claim 
for  them  only  what  is  guaranteed  by  the  divine  promises,  in- 
fallibility in  their  doctrinal  decisions.  AA'hen  your  author  Gi- 
bert  stales  that  a  General  Council  can  neither  sin,  nor  err,  he 
does  not  certainly  mean,  that  no  sin  can  be  committed  by  its 
members,  even  in  their  solemn  deliberations.  Men  vested 
with  the  most  sacred  authority,  and  discharging  the  most  so- 
lemn functions  of  a  divine  ministry,  are  still  liable  to  the  im- 
perfections and  weaknesses  of  humanity.  There  was  much 
discussion,  most  probably  attended  with  some  fault,  under  the 
eyes  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  in  the  first  council:  but  the 
decree  which  went  forth,  determining  the  controversy,  had  the 
sanction  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  whose  assistance  is  granted  to 
the  tribunal  of  the  Cliurch,  in  virtue  of  the  prayer  of  Christ, 
without  regard  to  our  unworthiness. 


LETTER  XIX. 


ST  AMBROSE. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

From  the  East,  desolated  by  Ariaii  impiety  and  imperial 
persecution,  we  return  to  the  West,  to  hear  the  testimony  of 
Ambrose,  the  illustrious  archbishop  of  Milan.  The  remarks 
by  which  you  commence  the  examination  of  his  sentiments 
sufficiently  indicate  how  forcible  is  the  testimony  he  renders  to 
the  Primacy  of  Peter  and  his  successors  in  the  Roman  See.  In 
his  commentary  on  the  fortieth  Psalm,  he  says  :  "  This  is  that 
Peter  to  whom  Christ  said  :  '  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  Church.'  Therefore,  where  Peter  is, 
THERE  IS  THE  Church,  there  death  is  not,  but  life  eternal :  and 
therefore  he  added:  'and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it :  and  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.'  Blessed  Peter,  against  whom  the  gate  of  hell  did 
not  prevail,  and  tiie  gate  of  heaven  was  not  closed  :  but,  on 
the  contrary,  he  destroyed  the  porches  of  liell,  and  laid  open 
those  of  heaven  :  therefore,  whilst  on  earth,  he  opened  heaven, 
and  shut  hell."*  Saint  Ambrose  wrote  thus  when  refuting 
the  Arians.  He  speaks  of  the  question  put  by  our  Redeemer 
to  his  disciples  as  to  what  opinions  were  current  among  men 
concerning  him.  He  observes  the  silence  of  Peter  in  this  cir- 
cumstance ;  but  he  calls  our  attention  to  his  promptitude  in 
answering  the  question  as  to  their  own  belief,  *'  This,  there- 
fore, is  Peter,  who  answered  rather  than  the  other  Apostles, 
yea,  for  the  others,   and  he  is  therefore  styled  the  foundation, 

*     S.  Ambros.  in  Psalm  xl.  enarr.  §  30,  p.  7C2.    Ed.  Paris,  an.  IGGl. 


I'KTF.Il  TMF,   FOINDATION.  239 

because  lie  knew  how*  lo  preserve  not  only  that  whicli  was 
his  own,  but  also  which  was  common  to  all.  To  him  Christ 
gave  his  approbation;  the  Father  revealed  it:  for  he,  who 
speaks  of  the  true  generation  of  the  Father,  learned  it  not 
from  flesh,  but  from  the  Father.  Faith,  therefore,  is  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church  :  for  it  was  ncU  said  of  the  flesh  of  Peter, 
but  of  his  faith,  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it:  but  the  confession  overcame  hell.  And  this  confession 
does  not  exclude  one  heresy  only  :  for  since  the  Church,  like  a 
good  ship,  is  lashed  oftentimes  by  many  waves,  the  foundation 
of  the  Church  ouglit  to  prevail  against  all  heresies.  'I'he  day 
would  close  before  I  should  have  enumerated  tlie  names  of  the 
heretics  and  difl'erenl  sects  :  but  against  all  of  them  that  faith 
is  general,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  Cod,  eternally  proceeding 
from  the  Father,  born  in  time  of  the  Virgin."!  When  Amhrose 
says,  tliat  faith  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  he  speaks  of 
that  faith  as  professed  by  Peter,  that  is,  of  Peter  professing  the 
faith.  He  is,  therefore,  styled  the  foundation,  in  reward  of 
his  promptitude  to  confess  (yhrist  before  the  others,  and  in 
their  name,  because  he  showed  his  solicitude  for  their  general 
welfare  and  happiness.  The  confession  which  he  made  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  was,  indeed,  the  expression  of  his  divinely 
inspired  individual  faith,  but  it  was  made  by  him  in  reply  to  a 
question  that  regarded  all ;  nor  did  he  give  it  in  as  his  own  parti- 
cular faith.  Thus  he  knew  how  to  preserve  the  common  inte- 
rest, and  was  worthy  to  be  made  the  foundation,  and  principal 
member  of  the  Church.  St  Ambrose  insists  that  the  Church 
was  not  built  on  the  flesh  of  Peter,  but  on  his  faith  ;  because 
it  was  no  mere  natural  (jualily  that  gained  for  him  this  prero- 
gative, but  his  faith  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  this  faith  is 
ever  to  prove  the  bulwark  of  the  Church  against  the  endh^ss 
varieties  of  heresy.     As  the  saint  wrote  against  the  Arians,  he 

"  Hie  v»l  CTgo  I'l'trus,  qui  nspondit  prtr  cceleris  Apostolis,  inio  pro 
ca'toris,  rt  idco  fundninontun)  dicitur,  quia  novit  non  soluui  proj)riuin, 
Bod  etiauj  cotunuinc  scrvaic  Iluic  a«tipulatu8  est  Christus,  rovrlavit 
Pater. 

t     S.  Anibros.  dc  incarn.  c.  1  and."),  p.  2-2\.    Tom.  II.  Kdit.  Basil. 


240  ST  AMBROSE. 

particularly  insisted  on  the  necessity  and  efficacy  of  this  di- 
vinely inspired  belief.  The  text  is  obviously  to  be  understood 
of  the  faith  of  Peter,  not  as  distinct  from  him  ;  and  numberless 
testimonies  of  Ambrose  confirm  this  meaning.  Thus,  in  his 
work  on  faith,  he  observes  :  "  That  you  may  know  that  what 
he  asks  as  man,  he  ordains  by  his  divine  power,  you  have  in 
the  Gospel  what  he  said  to  Peter  :  '  I  have  prayed  for  thee, 
that  thy  faith  may  not  fail.'     And  when  Peter  said  before : 

*  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,'  he  answered: 

*  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church, 
and  to  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
Could  he  not,  therefore,  strengthen  the  faith  of  him  to  whom 
he  gave  a  kingdom  of  his  own  authority,  and  whom,  in  call- 
ing A  ROCK,  HE  MADE  THE  STRENGTH  OF  THE  ChURCH  ?  Con- 
sider when  it  is  that  he  prays — when  it  is  that  he  commands. 
He  prays  when  he  is  about  to  suffer;  he  commands  when  he 
is  believed  to  be  the  Son  of  God."*  Peter,  then,  according  to 
this  holy  doctor,  is  the  rock  of  strength  on  which  the  Church 
rests  :  he  has  received  a  kingdom  from  Christ.  Elsewhere  he 
says  : — "  In  consequence  of  the  solidity  of  his  devotion,  he  is 
styled  the  rock  of  the  Churches,  as  the  Lord  says  :  '  Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church :'  for  he  is 
called  a  rock,  because  he  was  the  first  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
faith   among  the   nations,    and  like   an   immovable    stone  he 

HOLDS     TOGETHER    THE     STRUCTURE    AND    MASS    OF    THE    WHOLE 

Christian  fabric. "t — Speaking  of  the  cure  of  the  lame  man, 
he  observes:  "We  have  said  frequently,  that  he  was  called 
Peter  by  the  Lord,  as  he  says  :  '  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  Church.'  Since,  therefore,  Peter  is  the 
rock  on  whicii  the  Church  is  built,  it  is  meet  that  in  llie  first 
instance  he  should  heal  the  feet The  rock  sustains  and 

RENDERS  firm  THE  NATIONS  LEST  THEY  FALL. "J 


*     S.  Ambros.  de  Fide.  l.iv.  p.  99    Edit.  Basil. 

t    "  Tamquam  saxum  immobile  totius  operis  Christian!  compagem  mo- 
lemq:  contineat."    S.  Ambros.  Serin.  47,  p.  35G.  Edit.  Basil. 
X     Serm.  Gd,  p.  3G1. 


KXHORTATION   TO   lAlIH.  211 

It  is  manifest  llial  St  Ainhrose  inlcrprolcd  l!;e  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture precisely  as  u  e  interpret  tliein,  atul  recognised  in  i*eler 
special  powers  and  ])rer()gatives  not  granted  to  ilie  (Ulier  Apos- 
tles of  Christ.  He  was  tlie  rock, — the  lonndation, — the  sirengili 
and  support  of  the  Clinrch, — sustaining  ail  the  parts  of  the  vast 
fabric,  hokhng  then)  togi'lher  in  unity,  and  imparting  to  them 
strengili  and  durability.  He  received  a  kingdom  from  Clirist, 
— that  lieavenly  kingdom  wiiose  keys  were  entrusted  to  him. 
But  you  refer  us  to  texts  in  which  the  saint  exhorts  every  one 
to  believe  as  Peter  believed,  that  he  also  may  be  blessed,  and 
asserts  that  whosoever  overcomes  the  flesh,  is  a  foundation  of  the 
Church. — Surely  in  this  no  more  was  intended  than  an  exhorta- 
tion to  faith  and  piety,  with  the  assurance  that  those  who  imi- 
tate the  faith  of  Peter,  will  receive  a  divine  blessing,  and  be- 
come serviceable  to  religion.  Such  as  are  familiar  with  the 
writings  of  llie  Fathers  know,  that  it  was  their  constant  prac- 
tice thus  to  take  occasion  from  every  fact,  or  sentence  of  Scrip- 
ture, to  moralize  and  to  exhort,  'i'he  saint  mostclearly  intimates 
it  in  the  very  sentence  itself:  "  Whosoever,"  says  he,  ♦*  over- 
comes the  llesh,  is  a  foundation  of  the  Church,  and  if  he  can- 
not equal  Pttrr,  he  can  iuiitafc  him.''*  It  is  in  the  same 
spirit  that  he  continues  in  this  paragraph  to  treat  of  the  term 
*'  rock.'"  "  Christ,"  says  he,  "  is  a  rock  :  '  for  they  drank  of 
that  spiritual  rock  which  followed  them,  and  the  rock  was 
Christ.'  He  did  not  deny  the  favour  of  this  appellation  even 
to  his  disciple,  that  he  may  also  be  Peter,  because  from  the 
rock  he  derives  the  solidity  of  constancy,  and  the  firmness  of 
faith. "t  Thus  far  he  retains  the  literal  meaning  of  the  text, 
and  often  and  strongly  inculcates  it.  Thence  he  takes  occa- 
sion for  exhortation.  "  Strive,  then,"  continues  he,  "  that 
thou  also  may  be  n  rock.  Look  not  out  of  thee,  but  within 
thee,  for  the  rock.  Thy  rock  is  thy  action  :  thy  rock  is  thy 
mind.  On  this  rock  h-t  thy  house  be  built,  that  it  may  not  be 
lashed  by  the  storms  of  ilic  spiri'.s  of  wickedness.      Thy  rock 

'      S.  Aiiibrns    1.  vj     Liir.  c    ix.  j>.  Mi.      IMil.  liasil,  anno  l't'.V<. 

♦    Ibid.  p.  to. 

V 


242  ST  AMBROSE. 

is  faith — tlie  foundation  of  the  Church  is  faith.  If  thou  art  a 
rock,  thou  wilt  be  in  the  Church,  because  the  Church  is  on  the 
rock.  If  thou  art  in  the  Church,  the  gates  of  hell  will  not 
prevail  against  tliee.  The  gates  of  hell  are  the  gates  of  death  : 
but  the  gates  of  death  cannot  be  the  gates  of  the  Church.  But 
what  are  the  gates  of  death,  that  is,  the  gates  of  hell,  unless 
the  several  sins  ?  If  thou  art  a  fornicator,  thou  hast  entered 
the  gates  of  death  :  if  thou  hast  violated  thy  faith,  thou  hast 
entered  the  gates  of  hell:  if  thou  hastcommitted  mortal  sin,  thou 
hast  entered  the  gates  of  death."*  You  justly  observe  the  corres- 
pondence of  Origen  and  Ambrose  in  this  strain  of  edifying,  but 
mystic,  interpretation.  No  interpreter  of  Scripture  would  ven- 
ture to  adopt  it  as  the  genuine  and  literal  meaning  ;  nor  is  there 
the  least  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  givesi  as  such  by  its  ingeni- 
ous authors.  St  Ambrose,  speaking  of  the  name  of  rock  as  com- 
mon to  Christ  and  to  Peter,  says:  "  Some  believed  the  Lord 
to  be  Elias,  some  Jeremias,  some  John  the  Baptist.  Peter  alone 
confesses  him  to  be  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  There  are  cer- 
tain gradations  of  faith,  and  he  who  believes  more  devoutly, 
confesses  more  religiously.  In  consequence  of  this  devotion 
it  is  said  to  Peter :  '  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona,  for  flesh 
and  blood  liath  not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in 
heaven.  And  I  say  to  thee  :  thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock 
1  will  build  my  Church.'  His  name  then  being  Simon,  he  was 
called  Peter  on  account  of  this  devotion.  We  read  in  the 
Apostle  of  the  Lord  himself:  '  they  drank  of  the  Spiritual  Rock, 
and  the  Rock  was  Christ.'  Justly,  since  Christ  was  a  Rock, 
Simon  was  named  Peter,  that  he  who  enjoyed  the  communion 
of  faith  with  the  Lord,  might  have,  with  the  Lord  also,  the 
unity  of  the  Lord's  name ;  that  as  the  Christian  is  called  from 
Christ,  so  also  the  Apostle  Peter  should  derive  his  name  from 
Christ  the  Rock."t  Peter,  then,  is  a  rock  in  a  peculiar  sense, 
made  such  in  reward  of  his  faith,  and  that  he  might  be  the 
strength  and  support  of  the  whole  Church.  "  Peter,"  says 
be,  elsewhere,    "  is  therefore  styled  a  rock  for  his  devotion, 

*     S.  Ambros.  1.  vi.  Luc.  c.  ix.  p.  89.     Edit.  Basil,  anno  1538. 
t     Ambr.  Scrm.  84.    Tom.  III.  p.  383. 


I'ETKR,   inSIlOP  OF  Tilt;   ROMAN   (MU'RCII.  243 

and  the  Lord  is  slyled  a  Kock  lor  his  power,  as  the  Apostle 
says  ;  '  they  drank  of  the  Spiritual  Kock  that  lollowed  them, 
and  ilie  Kock  was  Christ.'  lie  jiisiiy  deserves  the  conimuni- 
catioii  of  the  name,  uho  is  made  worthy  to  partake  of  the  work, 
for  Peter  in  the  same  house  laid  the  foundation.  Peter  plants, 
the  Jjord  gives  an  increase,  the  Lord  waters."*  As  for  the 
passage  wherein  it  is  said,  that  "  all  the  chddren  of  the  Church 
are  priests, "t  as  it  has  no  connexion  willi  our  j)resent  investi- 
gation, 1  can  only  e.xpress  my  surprise  at  its  unseasonahle  in- 
troduction. Besides,  its  explanation  is  immediately  subjoin- 
ed :  **  for  we  are  anointed  to  the  priesthood  that  we  may  offer 
ourselves  spiritual  victims  to  God."  Peter  was  a  priest  in  a 
far  snhlinjer  sense  ;  lie  was,  as  St  Ambrose  teslilies,  "  Bishop 
of  the  Koman  Church. "t 

The  passage  which  you  object  from  tlie  commentary  on  the 
thirty-eitrluh  Psalm,  to  be  properly  understood,  must  be  read 
in  coimexion  with  the  context  of  the  place  whence  it  is  taken. 
The  last  verse  of  the  Psalm  reads  thus,  in  our  Vulgate  trans- 
lation : — "O  forgive  me,  that  I  may  be  refreshed,  before  I  go 
hence  and  be  no  more."  On  these  words  St  Ambrose  writes — 
*'F«)ri;;ive  me,  that  is,  fori^ive  me  here  where  I  have  sinned. 
Unless  you  forgive  me  here,  I  shall  not  be  able  to  find  there 
the  repose  consequent  on  forg'veness:  for  what  remains  bound 
on  earth,  shall  remain  bound  in  heaven,  what  shall  be  loosed 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.  Therefore,  the  Lord  gave 
to  his  Apostles,  what  previously  was  reserved  to  his  own  judg- 
ment, the  discretionary  power§  of  remiitintr  sins,  lest  what 
should  be  speedily  loosed  should  remain  bountl  for  a  long  time. 
Finally,  hear  what  he  says:  '  I  wdl  give  to  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on 
earth,  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  on  earth,  shall  be  looseil  also   in   heaven.'      'i'o  thee,  he 


•  S.  Arnbros.  i.  v.  §  :V3.     Kdit.  Par.  p.  13(V4. 
t  Smn.  47,  p.  WM. 

*  S    Ami.,  dr  Sac.l.  lii.  c.  1,  p.  37}.  T-.m.  IV.     Kdit.  U  lail. 
§  ./Ecjuilalt'in. 


244  ST  AMBROSE. 

says,  I  shall  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  thou 
mayst  loose  and  bind.  Novatian  did  not  hear  this,  but  the 
Church  of  God  heard  it :  therefore,  he  is  in  his  fallen  state ; 
we  are  in  the  way  of  forgiveness  :  he  is  in  a  state  of  impeni- 
tence ;  we,  of  grace.  What  is  said  to  Peter,  is  said  to  the 
Apostles.  We  do  not  usurp  the  power,  but  we  obey  the  com- 
mand :  lest,  when  the  Lord  shall  afterwards  come,  and  find 
those  bound  who  should  have  been  loosed,  he  be  excited  against 
the  dispenser  who  kept  the  servants  bound,  whom  the  Lord 
had  ordered  to  be  loosed.'**  Li  this  beautiful  vindication  of 
the  power  of  forgiving  sin,  as  exercised  by  the  Catholic  Church, 
there  is  nothing  that  destroys  the  distinction  which  Christ 
made  in  the  powers  of  the  Apostles.  The  saint  quotes  the 
words  addressed  to  Peter,  to  prove  tliat  the  Church,  founded 
on  Peter,  has  the  power  of  forgiving  sins.  He  observes  that 
this  power  was  not  confined  to  Peter,  Christ  having  spoken  in 
like  manner  to  all  the  Apostles.  He  does  not  say,  that  he 
spoke  precisely  the  same  words,  or  gave  the  same  degree  of 
power;  but  he  says,  that  he  gave  to  them,  likewise,  the  power 
of  forgiveness.  He  does  not  treat,  here,  of  the  governing  power 
of  the  Church,  as  typified  by  the  keys  of  the  heavenly  kingdom, 
which  were  peculiarly  given  to  Peter,  but  of  the  power  of  for- 
giving sin,  of  binding  and  loosing,  which  was  common  to  all. 
When  speaking  distinctly  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  he  ascribes 
it  to  Peter  alone  :  "  Peter,  says  he,  who  received  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  went  up  to  the  mountain:  Jolm,  to 
whom  his  mother  is  entrusted  :  James,  also,  who  first  ascended 
the  Episcopal  throne."!  The  reception  of  the  keys  of  the 
heavenly  kingdom  was  consequently  his  characteristic,  as  it 
was  the  peculiar  privilege  of  Jolin  to  receive  in  his  charge  the 
mother  of  the  Lord,  and  of  James  to  govern  with  Episcopal 
authority  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  You  discover  equality  of 
privilege  where  "  Peter,  James,  and  John,  and  Barnabas"  are 

*     Enar.  in  Psahn  xxxviii.  p.  744.  Edit.  Par.  an.  1662. 
t     S  Ambios.  Comm.  in  Lucam,  1.  vii.  c.  9.  p.  92.  Tom.  V.  Ed.  Col. 
See  also  in  Psalm  cxviii.  Serm.  20. 


I'KTKU  S   l'RKRi)OATI\  i;.  245 

Styled  pillars,  :i.s  if  lliij^  ironornl  rxprossion  (Iclermiiu'd  llie  de- 
gree f.f  miiliorily  with  which  llicy  were  rcspiMiivcly  vested. 
And  even  when  liie  saint  calls  Peter — "  an  eternal  gate,  against 
wlion)  the  gates  of  hell  shall  ni)t  prevail,"^  you  imagine  that 
his  prerogative  is  destroyed  by  the  application  of  the  same 
symholical  expression  to  John  and  James,  though  lie  assigns  a 
quite  different  reason,  namely,  the  appellation  of  "  sons  of 
thunder,"  which  was  given  them.  It  appears  to  me  lliat  a 
distinction,  evi^ry  where  so  strongly  marked,  manifestly  de- 
notes special  prerogative. 

When  Si  Ambrose  says,  that  "  not  only  in  Peter  the  one 
operation  of  the  Father,  fc>on  and  Holy  Ghost  is  found,  but  also 
the  unity  of  the  divine  operation  in  all  the  Apostles  is  revealed, 
and  a  certain  authority  of  the  divine  ap|)ointment  ;t  for  the  di- 
vine operation  implies  command,  not  service  ;J  he  d«)es  not  at 
all  speak  of  the  degree  in  which  the  lliree  divine  persons 
wrought  in  Peter  and  in  the  other  Apostles.  He  was  engaged 
in  proving  that  the  operations  of  tlu'  Deity  are  common  to  tlie 
Father,  Son,  aiul  Holy  Ghost,  and  he  illustrated  the  principle 
by  reference  to  Peter.  As  Paul  was  expressly  set  apart  lor  the 
ministry  hy  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  as  he  testilied  that  the  same 
who  had  wrought  in  Peter  for  tliose  of  the  circumcision  had 
wrought  in  him  for  the  Gentiles,  he  shows  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
wrought  in  Peter.  The  operation  of  the  Father  is  established 
by  the  testimony  of  Peter  himself,  who  declares,  that  God  chose 
that  the  nations  should  hear  the  Gospel  from  his  lips  :  "  Be- 
hold, therefore,"  Si  Ambrose  remarks,  "  God  wrought  in  Peter 
the  grace  of  preaching:  in  which  thing,  since  he  was  certainly 
chosen  and  assumed  hy  Christ,  who  dares  call  in  question  the 
operation  (jf  C'hrisl,  since  the  JiortI   himself  says:  'Feed  my 

•     S.  Ambros.  de  fide,  1.  iv.  c.  J.  §  tl't.  Tom.  H.  p.  [Hi.  Ed.  Bas. 

\  "  Qua-darn  superno)  constituliunis  auloritas."  The  tcnn  "  consti- 
lutio,"  is  applied  by  St  Ambrose  to  the  appointment  and  establishment 
of  the  Apostles:  "Nam  si  constitulionem  separes  el  polestatem,  qua' 
erat  causa  ut  quos  posuernt  Apnstolos  ('bristiis,  poneret  deus  pater,  po- 
ncret  et  Spirituii  Sanclus^" — S  Ambros  dc  Spir.  S.  I.  ii.  c.  I'i,  p.  lf*'.\. 
Tom.  II.  Ed.  Una.  I     Ibidem. 

V» 


246  ST  AMBROSE. 

lambs?'  The  operation  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  is, 
therefore,  one."     His  object,  then,  is  not  to  prove  tlie  equality 
of  the  Apostles,  but  the  imitij  of  the  operation  of  the  three  di- 
vine persons  ;  so  that  whatever  grace,  or  power,  was  commu- 
nicated to  the  Apostles,  shoukl  be  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
equally  as  to  the  Father  and  the  Son, — as  "  all  the  Apostles 
were  not  only  disciples  of  Christ,  but  also  ministers  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  llie  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."     I  may  admire 
the  skill  by  which  texts  having  no  relation  whatever  to  the 
subject  in  dispute  are  thrown  together,  because  the  words  taken 
by  themselves,  apart  from  their  context,  appear  favourable  to 
your  position  ;  but  I  cannot  deem  it  the  most  effectual  method 
of  arriving  at  an  author's  meaning,  or  of  conveying  that  mean- 
ing to  others.     You  add,  from  the  same  work, — "  Therefore, 
we  behold  unity  of  government, — unity  of  system, — unity  of 
bounty."     Of  what  government  does  the  author  speak?    You 
introduce  him  as  if  he  was  establishing  equality  of  powers  in 
the  Apostolic  government;  and  yet  he  speaks  not  of  them,  but 
of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  concurring  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Church  !    I  shall  recite  the  passage,  with  its 
context,  and  leave  the  reader  to  judge  of  the  fairness  of  your 
application  of  it.   "  The  Spirit  gives,"  says  St  Ambrose,  *'  what 
the  Father  gives,  what  the  Son  also  gives.     Let  us,  then,  un- 
derstand more  expressly  what  we  touched  upon  before,  that  the 
Father  and  Son,  and  likewise  the  Holy  Ghost,  ordain  the  oflice, 
and  establish  the  same  persons.      For  Paul  said  :   '  Take  heed 
to  yourselves,  and  to  the  whole  flock  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  placed  you  bishops  to  rule  the  Church  of  God.'     There  is 
unity,  then,  of  ordinance,  unity  of  appointment,  unity  of  com- 
munication.* For  if  you  separate  the  establishment  and  power, 
what  reason  was  there  that  God   the  Father,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  should  place  those  whom  Christ  had  constituted  Apos- 
tles ?"t     The  unity  of  command,  of  which  he  speaks,  is  the 
concurrence  of  the  three  Divine  Persons  in  ordaining  the  ofKce  ; 

*     "  Unitas  igitur  imperii,  unitas  constitutionis,  unitas  largitatis." 
I     Ibid. 


EQUALITY  OF  MFMHT.  247 

— llie  unity  of  appoinlnuMit  is  llioir  concurreiico  in  ronstiuiting 
the  iiulividiials  who  are  to  tlisclrar<;e  it, — the  uniiy  of  coiiimu- 
nication  is  their  coiieurreiice  in  beslowiiitr  the  graces  whereby 
it  is  to  he  exereiseil. 

It  is  in  connexion  with  this  that  tlie  saint  proceeds  to  dwell 
on  this  unity  of  majesty  in  tiie  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  (Jhost, 
which,  lie  says,  tnight  be  more  aptly  termed  by  a  Greek  word — 
T«wTCT«:,  or  '*  identity,"  which  is  not  a  mere  union  of  afTection, 
but  is  the  very  **  substance  of  the  Trinity."  "  'I'his,"  he  sub- 
joins, "  is  the  inheritance  of  Ai)oslolic  faith  and  devotion,  which 
may  be  seen  from  their  acts.  'I'herefore  did  Paul  and  Harna- 
bas  obey  the  commands  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  and  all  the  Apos- 
tles obeyed,  and  immediately  ordained  those  whom  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  ordered  to  be  set  apart:  '  Set  apart  for  me,'  he  says, 
*Paul  and  Barnabas.'  "  It  is  impossible,  sir,  that  the  text  of 
St  Ambrose  could  have  been  before  you  when  you  endeavoured 
to  prove  an  equality  of  power  among  the  Apostles,  from  a 
passage  in  which  the  author  establishes  only  the  identity  in 
substance  of  the  three  divine  persons,  and  the  obedience  yield- 
ed to  the  commands  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  Apostles. 

The  last  passage  you  bring  forward  is  tlie  only  one  which 
appears  to  refer  to  the  (piestion  at  issue  between  us  :  yet  it  can 
easily  be  seen  that  the  equality  of  Paul  to  Peter  is  asserted, 
not  as  to  the  power  of  office,  but  as  to  the  merit  of  virtue  ;  and 
this  with  a  view  to  prove  that  the  choice  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
full  of  wisdom.  "You  see,"  says  Ambrose,  "  the  command 
of  Him  who  orders:  consider  the  merit  of  those  that  minister. 
Paul  believed;  and,  because  he  believed,  he  forsook  the  pur- 
suits of  a  persecutor,  and  bore  away  the  crown  of  justice.  He 
who  laid  waste  the  churches  bclieveil;  and,  being  converted  to 
the  faith,  he  preached  in  the  spirit  what  the  spirit  commanded. 
The  spirit  anointed  his  chamj)i()n,  and  liaving  shaken  of]' from 
him  the  dust  of  in)j)iety,  presented  to  the  various  assaults  of 
the  impious,  an  invincible  concjueror  of  unbelievers,  and,  by 
divers  sulTerings,  prepared  him  for  iUo.  j)rize  of  the  heavenly 
vocation  in  ('hrist  Jesus.  IJariiahas  also  I)elieved,  and,  because 
he  believed,  lie  obeyed.     '1  herefore,  being  chosen  by  the  com- 


248  ST  AMBROSE. 

mand  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  wliioh  is  abundant  evidence  of  the 
excellence  of  his  merits,  he  was  not  unworthy  of  so  great  a 
college.  For  the  same  grace  slione  forth  in  those  whom  the 
same  spirit  had   cliosen.      Nor   was  Paul   inferior  to   Peter, 

THOUGH  THE    ONE   WAS    THE    FOUNDATION  OF    THE   ChURCK,  and 

the  other  a  wise  architect,  knowing  how  lo  establish  the  steps 
of  the  nations  that  believe.  Paul,  1  say,  was  not  unworthy  of 
the  college  of  the  Apostles,  since  he  also  may  be  con)pared 
with  THE  FIRST,  and  was  second  to  none:  for  he  who  does  not 
acknowledge  himself  inferior,  makes  himself  equal."*  The 
meaning  of  the  saint  is  obvious.  lie  is  careful  to  mark  even 
here  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  Peter  as  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Church,  and  first  of  the  Apostles,  whilst  he  sup- 
poses Paul  equal  in  merit,  and,  on  that  account,  to  be  compared 
even  with  the  first. 

The  pastoral  and  governing  authority  of  Peter  is  clearly  set 
forth  by  St  Ambrose  in  many  places',  wherein  he  treats  of  the 
commission  given  to  him  by  Clirisl  to  feed  his  sheep.  In  his 
forty-sixth  sermon  he  observes  :  "  When  he  (Peter)  was  thrice 
questioned  by  the  Lord:  'Simon,  dost  thou  love  me?'  He 
answered  thrice  :  '  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.'  The 
Lord  says  :  '  Feed  my  sheep.'  This  was  thrice,  which,  being 
thrice  said,  served  to  compensate  for  his  former  fault,  for  he 
who  had  denied  the  Lord  thrice,  confesses  him  thrice,  and  as 
often  as  he  had  contracted  guilt  by  his  delinquency,  he  gains 
favour  by  his  love.  See,  therefore,  how  profitable  to  Peter  was 
his  weeping !  Before  he  wept,  he  fell ;  after  he  wept,  he  was 
chosen,  and  he  who  had  been  a  prevaricator  before  his  tears, 
after  his  tears  was  made  Pastor,  and  he  received  the  govern- 
ment of  others,  who  before  had  not  governed  himself."t  In 
his  commentary  on  the  one  hundred  and  eighteenth  Psalm,  he 
says  :  "  therefore  did  Christ  commit  to  Peter  to  feed  his  flock, 
and  do  the  will  of  the  Lord,  because  he  knew  his  love. "J     In 

*     S.  Ambros.  1.  de  Sp.  S.  §  158. 
t     S.  Amb.  Serm.  4G,  p.  335. 
X     Serm.  13,  p.  516. 


ROMAN  CIllKCH.  249 

liis  commentary  on  LiiUo,  1h»  says  of  Peter:  "  lie  is  aniicted, 
because  he  is  questioned  ihc  tliircl  lime:  ♦  Dost  iliou  love  me?' 
But  the  Lord  does  not  (loul)t ;  he  interroirates  him  not  to  learn, 
but  to  teacli  him,  whum,  when  about  to  he  elevated  to  heaven, 
he  left  to  us  as  thk  vicar  of  iiis  lovk.  For  thus  you  liave  : 
*  Simon,  son  of  John,  dost  thou  love  me  V  '  Thou  knowest, 
Lord,  that  I  love  thee.'  Jesus  said  to  him  :  '  Fvvd  niy  lambs.' 
And  because  lie  alone  of  all  professes  his  love,  hk  is  pre- 
ferred TO  ALL."''  l*eter  then  was  made  pastor  and  governor, 
and  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  jjerform  towards  men  the  kind 
ofTices  which  the  love  of  our  Redeemer  inspired,  and  he  was  pre- 
ferred TO  all  in  this  pastoral  ofhee. 

To  these  exi)lieii  and  splendid  testimonies  of  the  superior 
authority  of  the  Prince  of  the  Aposdes,  you  oppose  what  you 
conceive  to  be  '♦  a  direct  proof  of  the  independence  which  Am- 
brose exercised  with  rcganl  to  the  Church  of  Rome."  The 
reader  may  ask,  does  it  regard  any  detined  doctrine? — or  any 
general  law? — or  the  communion  with  that  Church?  The 
answer  must  necessarily  be  negative.  JNol  only  did  he  firmly 
hold  the  symbol  t)f  faith,  which,  as  he  aHlrms,  "the  Roman 
Church  always  guards  and  preserves  inviolate,!  but  he  even 
declares  that  he  "  follows  the  example  and  form  of  that  ('hnrch 
in  all  things. "I  He  conceived,  ho^vever,  that,  without  disre- 
spect to  its  authoriiy,  he  might  retain  a  pious  usage  of  the 
church  of  Milan,  though  not  adopted  in  the  Roman  Church, 
namely,  the  washing  of  the  feet  of  the  neophytes,  on  their 
coming  forth  from  the  font,  in  commemoration  of  what  our 
Lord  performed  at  his  Last  Supper.  In  this  he  violated  no  law, 
but  was  sustained  by  the  ancient  usage  of  his  church,  which, 
in  regard  to  reli<:ious  rites,  and  other  discij>linary  matters,  has 
the  fori!eof  law.  Besides,  the  rite  naturally  recalled  to  the  mind 
of  the  neophyte  the  prayer  of  Peter,  that  not  oidy  his  leel,  but 
his  hands  and  head  should  be  cleansed;  wherefore  Si  Ambrose 

•     S.  Ainbros.  in  Liir.  I.  10.  n.  IT.'j. 

1      L.  I.  Kj).  7,  ad  Siricium. 

I     "Cujuslypuiii  in  omnibus  Bequiimir  elfunnain." — L.  iii.  do  sac.  c.  1. 


250  ST  AMBROSE. 

remarks:  "  We  follow  the  Apostle  Peter  himself:  we  adhere 
to  the  example  of  his  devotion.  What  does  the  Roman  Church 
say  tt)  this?  Truly  the  Apostle  Peter  himself,  who  was  Bishop 
of  the  Roman  Church,  is  our  authority  for  this  assertion."* 
The  saint  shows  liis  profound  respect  for  the  authority  of  that 
Church,  of  which  Peler  was  Bishop,  and  says  that  it  is  his 
"  anxiruis  desire  to  follow  it  in  all  things. "t  You  profess  your 
vvillinjrness  to  he  a  "Catholic  of  the  primitive  stamp,  and  ask 
no  hetter  rule  than  the  example  of  the  sainted  Ambrose." — 
Follow  then  his  example:  acknowledire  Peter  to  have  been  the 
Bishop  of  the  Romaii  Church:  cherish  its  communion;  hold 
its  faith,  and  endeavour  to  follow  its  example  in  all  things. 

The  a(tts  of  the  Council  of  Aquileia,  which  you  present  as 
evidence  of  the  senliments  and  practice  of  Ambrose,  who  took 
the  leailing  part  in  its  proceedings,  are  rejected  as  suppositi- 
tious by  the  learned  Chitflct;  but  as  they  are  generally  admit- 
ted by  others,  you  are  entitled  to  the  full  benefit  to  be  derived 
from  them.  They  do  not,  indeed,  wear  the  usual  form  of  the 
proceedings  of  councils,  the  (/bvjons  reason  of  which  is,  that 
they  are  the  plain  record  of  the  trial  intended  to  be  presented 
to  the  emperors,  who  had  called  together  the  Fathers,  at  the 
solicitatioti  of  Palladius  and  Secundianus.  'J  his  will  explain 
to  you  an  obscure  sentence,  the  meaning  of  which  you  have 
evidently  mistaken.  After  much  informal  discussion,  during 
which  many  Arian  blasphemies  were  uttered  by  Palladius  and 
Secundianus,  Ambrose  proposed  ihat  the  j)ublic  notaries  should 
take  minutes  of  the  proceedings,  lest  there  should  be  any  room 
for  tergiversation. — "  We  have,"  said  he,  "  long  enough  treated 
of  matters,  without  any  record  being  made  of  our  proceedings. 
Since  such  horrible  blasphemies  are  uttered  in  our  hearing  by 
Palladius  and  Secundianus,  that  it  might  appear  incredible  that 
they  should  have  dared  blaspheme  so  openly  ;  lest  they  after- 
wards, by  any  cunning  device,  attempt  to  deny  their  expres- 
sions,  though    no   doubt  could   be   entertained   of    what  the 

*     L.  iii.  de  sac.  c.  1. 

t     "  In  omnibus  cupio  sequi  ecclesiam  Romanam. — lb. 


COUNCIL  OF   AQI'IIKIA,  251 

venerable  bisfiops  here  asseinblcd  wouUi  lisiiiy  ; — yel  since 
sucli  is  ibe  good  pleasure  of  all  ihe  bishops,  lei  ihe  proceedings 
be  written  down,  that  each  one  may  not  have  it  in  his  power 
to  deny  his  assertions.  You  must,  holy  brethren,  declare  your 
will."  All  the  bish«)ps  cried  out:  *'  It  is  our  will."  Ambrose 
the  bishop  said  :  "  Our  proceedintijs  should  be  authorized  by 
the  reading  of  ihe  imperial  decree,  that  they  may  be  alleged 
in  evidence."  The  deacon  JSabinian  read  it.  Alter  the  read- 
ing of  it,  Ambrose  liie  bishop  saiil  :  '*  Behold  what  the  (chris- 
tian emperor  has  ileitrmined.  He  would  not  d<j  an  injury  to 
the  bishops  :  he  appointed  the  bishops  themselves  to  examine 
the  case."*  'JMie  cause  proceeded,  and  the  accused  bishops 
were  convicted  of  heresy,  and  deposed,  and  liie  result  commu- 
nicated to  the  emperors  in  a  sy nodical  epistle,  that  the  impe- 
rial aulhoriiy  might  prevent  the  heretical  bishops  retaining 
possession  of  their  Sees.  You  represent  this  as  "  an  abiire- 
ment,  the  authority  for  which  was  derived  from  the  imperial 
decree."!  The  proceedings  show  that  the  imperial  summons 
and  decree  merely  directed  the  attention  of  the  bishops  to  the 
case,  which,  of  right,  belonged  to  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal  ; 
bishops  being  the  proper  judges,  and  recognised  as  such  by 
the  emperor. 4: — IJut  the  Pope,  rather  than  the  council,  should 
have  been  calleil  on  to  judge  these  two  bishops  of  Ma^sia,  and 
yet,  you  observe,  *'  not  one  word  occurs  in  the  whole,  recog- 
nising or  alluding  to  the  Pope  of  Rome."  According  to  more 
recent  discipline  it  would  be  his  exclusive  prerogative.  At 
that  early  period,  however,  the  powers  of  councils  were  not 
so  limited,  th()u;,'h  their  acts  were  subject  to  be  rescinded  Iiv 
the  Pontiir,  as  was  done  by  Julius  in.  favor  of  Alhanasius,  wlio 

•     Cone.  Aqiiil.  col.  r'S}.  Tom.  I    Cone.  Col.  Ilarilouin. 

t  "  Disccjilaliones  nostra;  ex  re  firinanda;  sunt  scripto  iniperiali  ut 
allegcntur."  IJi»ho|)  Hopkins  translates  it:  "  Uiir  arbitreinent  upon 
this  iM.'ittiT  is  to  bf  conHrin<-(i  by  the  imperial  warrant,  as  it  may  be  ap- 
pointed." This  version  is  evidently  wrong.  Hardouin  reads  discrrpa- 
tioncs. 

\  "  Noluit  injuriam  faccre  sacerdolibus  ;  ipsos  inlerpretes  constiluit 
episcopos." — C.  e2G. 


252  ST  AMBROSE. 

had  been  deposed  by  the  Council  of  Tyre.  Possibly  the  new 
attempt  of  LFrsiciniis  to  disturb  Damasus,  the  lawful  Pope,  may 
have  been  the  reason  why  no  mention  is  made  of  him  in  the 
record  of  the  trial.  It  certainly  was  the  occasion  of  a  most 
splendid  tribute  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Church,  given 
by  the  Fathers  in  a  synodical  letter  addressed  to  the  emperors, 
in  which  they  are  earnestly  implored  to  guard  the  peace  and 
rights  of  the  Apostolic  See  :  "  Your  clemency  should  be  en- 
treated not  to  suffer  tlie  Roman  Church,  which  is  the  head  of 
THE  m'hole  world,  and  the  sacred  faith  of  the  Apostles  to  be 
disturbed  ;  for  the  venerable  rights  of  communion  flow 
THENCE  TO  ALL,"*  I  leave  you  then  to  consider  whether  it 
was  right  to  assert  that  "  not  one  word  occurs  in  the  whole, 
recognising  or  alluding  to  the  Pope  of  Rome,"  because  he  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  record  of  the  trial,  whilst  so  solemn  a  testi- 
mony is  borne  to  his  spiritual  chieflancy  in  the  synodical  letter 
of  the  prelates.  All  your  interrogatories  are  at  once  answered 
by  this  undeniable  fact. 

In  another  synod,  held  at  Capua,  at  which  Ambrose  was 
present,  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  distinctly 
recognised.  Flavian,  who  claimed  the  patriarchal  See  of  An- 
tioch,  had  been  called  to  Rome,  to  await  the  judgment  of  the 
Pope,  but  fearing  the  result,  he  excused  himself  on  various 
pretexts.  The  right  of  the  Roman  Bishop  to  judge  him  was 
not  controverted,  but  to  obviate  his  objections,  his  cause  was 
referred  by  the  Council  of  Capua  to  the  patriarch  of  Alexan- 
dria, on  condition  that  he  should  report  his  proceedings  and 
await  the  approbation  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  "  Truly,"  said 
the  Fathers  in  their  letter  to  Theophilus,  patriarch  of  Alexan- 
dria, which  was  composed  by  St,  Ambrose,  "  we  judge  that 
report  should  be  made  to  our  holy  brother  the  Bishop  of  the 
Roman  Church,  since  we  presume  that  you  will  pass  such  a 
judgment  as  cannot  dis{)lease  even  him.  For  in  this  way  will 
the  measure  be  efhcacious,  and  peace  and  tranquillity  will  be 

*    Cone.  Aqui).  Tom.  I.  col.  Hard  c.837.   Pie  reads'"  comnionitionis  :" 
The  received  reading  is  "  communionis." 


AGREEMENT   WITH    1111:    IIO.M AN  (  IlllUir.  253 

secured,  il*  your  tietc^nniiuilion  he  sucli  as  will  nol  cause  dis- 
sention  in  our  communion,  tliat  the  collection  of  our  decrees 
being  received,  we  may  joyfully  share  the  fruit  of  this  investi- 
gation, wlien  we  shall  know  that  what  has  been  done  is  un- 
doubtedly approved  of  by  the  Roman  Church."*  Thus,  the 
supreme  authority  of  thai  Church  is  most  distinctly  avowed. 
St.  Ambrose,  elsewhere,  commends  the  inviolable  integrity  of 
its  faith,  and  in  his  funeral  oration  on  liis  brother  Salirus,  he 
is  careful  to  mark  the  caution  witii  wiiich,  on  reachin<r  shore 
after  shipwreck,  he  inquired  whether  the  bishop  of  liie  place 
*'  agreed  in  faith  with  the  Catholic  bishops,  that  is<with  the 
Roman  Church."!  'IMie  agreement  with  that  Churcli,  spoken 
of  by  Irenaeus,  was,  in  the  days  of  Ambrose,  likewise,  the  crite- 
rion of  orthodox  faith. 

•     S.Ambros.  Ep.  78. 

I  "  Percontatusq.  ex  eo  est  utrumnam  cum  cpiscopis  catholicis,  hoc 
est,  cum  ccclesia  Roinana  conveniret."  Do  obitu  fratris,  p.  24,  Tom.  III. 
cd  Basil. 


LETTER   XX. 


ST  JEROME. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

In  introducing  to  us  the  solitary  of  Bethlehem,  you  acknow- 
ledge that  "it  is  not  to  be  disputed  that  in  drawing  to  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century,  we  find  increasing  proofs  of  the 
advancement  of  the  claims  of  Roman  supremacy  towards  the 
zenith  of  their  maturity."  This,  of  course,  cannot  surprise 
those  who  have  already  learned  from  you  that,  even  in  the  pri- 
mitive age,  under  pagan  and  persecuting  emperors,  some  of 
the  best  of  men  conceived  the  design  of  introducing  into  the 
Church  this  supremacy,  in  imitation  of  the  imperial  power, 
and  fancied  that  they  found  in  Scripture  divine  precepts  to 
sustain  their  supposed  innovation.  Admitting  your  hypo- 
thesis, our  astonishment  should  be,  that  the  advancement  was 
so  gradual.  The  attentive  reader  has,  I  trust,  already  perceiv- 
ed that  the  belief  of  this  power  is  coeval  with  the  Church,  and 
grounded  on  the  divine  writings  ; — that  its  exercise  in  all  ages 
is  manifest ; — and  that  if  the  evidences  accumulate,  as  we  de- 
scend the  stream  of  time,  it  is  because  the  occasions  of  exerting 
it  increased,  and  because  the  monuments  of  these  latter  ages 
are  more  numerous. 

St  Jerome,  writing  to  Pope  Damasus,  professes,  in  the  most 
solemn  manner,  his  devoted  attachment  to  the  Apostolic  chair 
of  Peter.  Having  passed  to  the  East,  he  found  the  church  of 
Antioch  disturbed  by  llie  adherents  of  three  ckiimants  of  the 
patriarchate — Paulinus,  Meleiius,  and  Vitalis.  A  considerable 
controversy  had  arisen  about  the  use  of  the  term — "  hypostasis," 
— which  by  some  was  understood  to  indicate,  "  substance," 


fHAlK  or   M-.TKR.  255 

or  "  nature,"  ami  liy  others,  •*  subsistence,"  or  "  person  ;"  so 
that,  even  amouj^  ihe  orthodox,  there  was  apparent  division, — 
some  afllrminj;^  that  there  were  three  hifpostases  in  llie  Deity, 
whilst  otiiors  maintained  that  there  was  but  one.  At  Antioch 
the  profession  of  tlirec  hypostases  was  demanded  as  a  condi- 
tion of  communion  ;  and  Si  Jerome,  hesitating  to  adopt  an  am- 
biguous phrase,  wrote  to  Damasus,  to  solicit  tlie  direction  of 
his  authority.  You  liave  given  a  long  extract  from  tiiis  vp.lua- 
ble  document:  "Since  the  lOast,"  says  Jerome,  "dashed  to- 
l^elher  by  tlie  olil  frenzy  of  the  people,  tears  [)iecemeal  the 
seainless  and  well-hemmed  coat  of  the  Lord,  and  the  foxes 
destroy  the  vineyard  of  Christ,  so  that  among  broken  cisterns 
which  hold  ni)  water,  it  is  diHicult  to  understand  where  the 
sealed  fountain,  the  enclosed  garden,  maybe  found:  llierefore, 
I  have  ihouirlit  it  best  for  me  to  consult  the  chair  of  Peter,  and 
the  faith  praised  by  the  Apostle's  mouth  ;  asking  at  this  time 
food  for  my  soul  from  the  same  quarter,  where  formerly  I  re- 
ceived the  garments  of  Christ.  For  the  vast  extent  of  water 
and  land  that  lies  between  us,  cannot  keep  me  from  seeking  the 
pearl  of  price.  Wherever  the  body  is,  tliere  are  tlie  eagles 
gathered  together.  The  patrimony  being  cast  away  by  a  per- 
verse offspring,  the  heritage  of  the  Fathers  is  preserved  uncor- 
ruptcd  with  you  alone.  'I'here  the  ground  with  its  prolific  soil 
declares  the  purity  of  the  Lord's  seed,  by  the  return  of  a  hun- 
dred fold  :  here  the  grain,  drowned  in  the  furrows,  degenerates 
into  tares  and  straw.  Now  the  sun  of  justice  rises  in  the  West: 
but  in  the  F^ast,  that  Lucifer,  who  had  fallen,  has  placed  his 
throne  above  the  stars.  You  arc  the  light  of  the  world,  you 
are  the  salt  of  the  earth,  you  are  vessels  of  gold  and  silver — 
here  the  vessels  of  earth  and  wood  await  the  rod  of  iron  and 
eternal  fire.  Notwithstanding,  therefore,  your  greatness  de- 
ters, yet  your  kindness  invites  me.  With  earnestness  I  ask  a 
victim  of  salvation  from  the  priest,  the  defence  which  the  sheep 
requires  from  the  shepherd.  Let  it  not  appear  invidious:  let 
the  pomp  of  Roman  majesty  withdraw  :*    I  speak  with  the  siic- 

'•  Kacctjsat  invidia:   Rojuuni  culininis  recedat  atiibitif).'"     This  ad- 


256  ST  JEROME. 

cessor  of  the  fisherman,  and  a  disciple  of  the  cross.  I,  who 
follow  none  first  except  Ciirist,  am  united  in  communion  to 
your  holiness,  that  is,  to  the  chair  of  Peter :  on  that  rock  I 
know  that  the  Church  is  built.  Whoever  eats  the  lamb  out  of 
this  house  is  profane.  AVhocver  was  not  in  Noe's  ark  must 
perish  in  the  deluge.  And  because  for  my  sins  I  have  come 
to  the  wilderness  which  separates  Syria  from  the  confines  of 
Barbary,  and  cannot  always  seek  the  body*  of  the  Lord  from 
your  holiness,  through  so  great  an  intervening  distance  :  there- 
fore, I  follow  here  your  colleagues,  the  confessors  of  Egypt, 
and  amidst  the  merchant  vessels  I  lie  hid  in  a  little  boat.  I 
know  nothing  of  Vitalis, — I  reject  Melelius  ; — I  care  not  for 
Paulinus.  Whoever  does  not  gather  with  you,  scatters  ;  that 
is,  whoever  is  not  of  Christ,  is  of  Antichrist.  For  now, — O 
shame  !  after  the  Nicene  faith,  after  the  Alexandrine  decree, — 
the  West  also  concurring,  the  new  phrase  of  three  hypostases 
is  exacted  of  me,  a  Roman,  by  the  bishop  of  the  Arians,  and  by 
the  Campenses.t  What  Apostles,  I  pray,  have  put  forth  these 
terms?  Wliat  new  Paul,  the  teacher  of  nations,  has  taught 
these  things  ?"J 

I  am  surprised  that  you  should  venture  to  assert,  that  this 
document  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  real  question  at  is- 
sue. That  question  involves  several  points  :  whether  Peter 
was  constituted  by  Christ  the  head  of  his  Church  ;  whether  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  is  his  successor ;  and  whether,  as  such,  he  is 
the  teacher  of  all  Christians,  tlie  pastor  of  the  entire  flock  of 
Christ,  the  ruler  of  the  whole  Church.  The  testimony  of  Je- 
rome bears  on  all  these  points.  With  him,  the  chair  of  Peter 
is  "  the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is  built ; — Damasus  is  "  the 


dress  of  an  humble  priest  to  the  Chief  Pontiff  of  the  Church  might  seem 
bold.  The  saint  excuses  his  boldness  by  adverting  to  the  occupation  of 
Peter.  Erasmus  remarks  that  by  invidla  he  indicates  "  quod  odiosum  sit 
ad  hunc  modum  interpellare  Summum  Pontificem." 

*  Sanctum  Domini.  Erasmus  understands  corpus  Domini,  It  might 
also  mean,  the  oracle  of  the  Lord. 

t     Those  of  Campas,  a  part  of  Cilicia. 

X     Hieronymus  Damaso,  f.  60.  Tom.  III.  Edit.  Bas.  an.  1516. 


COMMINION    WITH    IMITKk's   CHAIR.  257 

successor  of  the  fishermmi ;" — he  is  tho  pastor  evon  of  Jcrorae, 
who  was  then  far  distant  from  Rome,  and  in  the  disirirl  of  the 
patriarch  of  Aiiliooh  :  he  is  "  j)laced  on  the  siinuiul  of  Roman 
power;" — he  is  the  authoritative  tearlirr,  whom  this  most 
learned  man  desires  to  hear,  and  to  wliose  decision  he  professes 
himself  ready  to  yiehl  most  implicit  ohetlience.  Jerome's 
opinion  was  adverse  to  the  use  of  the  phrase  of  three  liyposta- 
ses  ;  but  it  is  thus  submitted  without  reserve  to  the  judgment  of 
the  First  Pastor: — "1  shall  not  fear  to  say  three  iiyposlases." 
It  concludes  with  the  most  solemn  appeal  to  his  authority  : — 
"  I  beseech  your  holiness,  by  Him  who  was  crucified,  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world,  by  the  consubstantial  'I'rinity,  to  give  me 
authority  in  your  letters  to  omit  mention  of  three  hypostases, 
or  to  declare  them."* 

The  second  letter  of  the  saint  on  the  same  subject,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  delay  of  Pope  Damasus  to  answer,  fully  sus- 
tains the  consequences  which  I  have  drawn  from  the  former: 
'♦  The  Arian  frenzy,  supported  by  the  powers  of  the  world, 
rages  on  the  one  side.  On  the  other,  the  Church  being  divid- 
ed into  three  parties,  each  of  them  hastens  to  snatch  me  to 
their  side.  The  ancient  authority  of  the  monks  that  live 
around  here  assails  me.  In  the  mean  lime  I  cry  aloud  :  ♦  Jf'/io- 
ever  is  uniled  with  (he  chair  of  Peter  is  mine.''  Meletius, 
Vitalis,  and  Paulinus  say  that  they  adhere  to  you.  I  could 
believe  one  asserting  it :  now  two  or  all  of  them  utter  false- 
hood. Tiierefore,  I  beseech  your  holiness,  by  the  cross  of  the 
Lord,  by  the  necessary  regard  for  tlu;  Iionour  of  our  faith,  by 
the  passion  of  Christ,  that  as  you  succeed  Apostles  in  dignity, 
you  emulate  their  merit,  and  thus  may  you  sit  on  a  tlirone 
with  the  twelve  in  judgment:  thus  may  another  gird  yon  as 
Peter  in  your  old  age:t  thus  may  you  obtain  with  Paul  the  citi- 
zenship of  heaven,  by  signifying  to  me  by  your  letter  with 
whom  I  ought  to  communicate  in  Syria.      Despise  not  a  sold 


•     Hior    Kp.  f.  CO.  Toiii.  III.   His.  Kd. 

t      Ho  prayathat  Daiiioiius  may  bo  found  worthy  of  inartyrtlom. 
\v 


258  ST  JEROME. 

for  which  Christ  died."* — Not  only  did  Jerome  cling  to  the 
chair  of  Peter,  but  the  various  chiefs  of  the  parties  into  which 
the  church  of  Anlioch  was  split,  claimed  its  communion;  so 
universally  was  it  recognised  by  all  Catholics  as  the  centre 
with  which  all  should  be  united.  As  to  Jerome  himself,  you, 
surely,  cannot  persuade  yourself  that  he  would  have  felt  au- 
thorised to  use  such  solemn  adjurations  in  two  successive 
letters^  had  he  not  believed  that  Damasus,  in  virtue  of  his 
station^  was  empowered  by  God  to  prescribe  the  terms  by 
which  the  orthodox  faith  should  be  expressed,  and  to  give  or 
withhold  his  communion  from  bishops,  according  as  their  faith 
should  appear  to  him  sound,  or  liable  to  suspicion. 

You  ask  the  reader  to  turn  to  the  letter  to  Evagrius,  that  he 
may  have  a  better  view  of  Jerome's  sentiments.  The  assertion 
of  some  one  that  deacons  were  above  priests,  was  the  occasion 
of  this  letter,  and  the  object  of  it  consequently  was  to  lower 
the  pride  of  some  deacons,  by  showing  the  high  character  of 
the  priesthood.  For  this  end  St  Jerome  has  recourse  to  a  fa- 
vourite idea,  that  priests  were  originally  called  bishops,  and 
partook  of  the  government  of  the  Church,  and  were  reduced, 
subsequently,  to  an  inferior  rank,  more  by  positive  ecclesiasti- 
cal law  and  arrangement,  than  in  virtue  of  the  divine  institution. 
This  is  not  the  place  to  develope  or  to  canvass  this  opinion  ; 
but  it  was  necessary  to  state  it,  that  the  reader  may  understand 
the  passages  which  you  have  objected,  and  which,  I  must  say, 
in  your  own  words  on  anotlier  occasion,  "  have  no  reference 
whatever  to  the  question  at  issue."  The  saint  does  not  write  to 
defend  the  rights  of  any  bishop  against  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  or 
to  establish  the  equality  of  all  bishops,  but  to  maintain  the  supe- 
riority of  priests  above  deacons:  "I  hear  that  some  one  has 
broken  out  into  such  frenzy  as  to  prefer  deacons  to  presbyters, 
that  is,  to  bishops :  for  whilst  the  Apostle  teaches  that  presby- 
ters and  bishops  are  the  same,  what  possesses  the  minister  of 
tables  and  widows  that  he  should  haughtily  raise  himself  above 
those  by  whose  prayers  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  con- 

*     Hier.  Ep.  Tom.  III.  f.  CI. 


EQUALirV  Ol    EPISCOPAL  LHAIIACTKU.  259 

secrated  ?"•  He  proceeds  to  establish  the  identity  of  priest- 
hood and  Episcopacy  from  various  texts  of  Scripture,  and  refers 
to  the  mode  ori^Mually  followed  in  ilic  election  of  liie  hishop  of 
the  church  of  Alexandria.  As  tlicse  are  matters  whicii  you 
wouhl  feel  bound  to  explain  to  your  Calvinistic  brethren,  I  can 
spare  myself  and  readers  the  trouble  of  all  elucidation.  After 
the  reference  to  the  church  of  Alexandria,  he  adds  what  may 
be  deemed  a  savin<T  clause:  *'  What  docs  a  bishop  do,  except- 
ing ordination,  which  a  presbyter  may  not  do?"  Then,  with 
special  reference  to  the  hij^h  pretensions  of  some  deacons  of  the 
Church  of  Home,  he  says:  *' The  Church  of  the  Koman  city 
is  not  to  be  thouirht  one  thinir,  and  the  Church  of  the  whole 
world  another.  Gaul,  and  Ikiiain,  and  Africa,  and  Persia,  and 
the  East,  and  India,  and  all  the  barbarous  nations  adore  the  one 
Christ, — observe  tlie  one  rule  of  Irulh.  If  authority  is  sought 
for,  the  world  is  greater  than  one  city.  Wherever  a  bishop  is, 
whether  at  Rome,  or  at  Eugubium,  or  at  Constantinople,  or 
Rhegium,  or  Alexandria,  or  Tanis,  he  is  of  the  same  merit,  of 
the  same  priesthood.  The  power  of  wealth,  and  the  lowliness 
of  poverty  makes  a  bishop  more  elevated,  or  less  exalted  :t 
however,  all  are  successors  of  the  Ai)Oslles.  But  you  say,  how 
is  it  that  at  Rome  the  priest  is  ordained  on  the  testimony  of 
the  deacon  ?  Why  do  you  urge  to  me  the  custom  of  one  city  ? 
Why  do  you  allege,  as  laws  of  the  Church,  the  paucity  whence 
haughtiness  has  taken  rise  ?  Every  thing  that  is  rare  is  sought 
after.  Paucity  makes  deacons  respected ;  the  multitude  of 
priests  brings  them  into  contempt.  However,  even  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  priests  sit  wiiilsl  the  deacons  remain  stand- 
ing." The  reader  can  now  judge  whether  the  ciiuality  of  merit 
and  of  priesthood,  which  Jerome  claims  for  every  bishop, 
wherever  he  reside,  be  intended  to  include  an  equality  of  juris- 
diction. He  asserted  the  ecpiality  of  the  Episcopacy,  evidently 
with  a  view  to  embrace  even  the  priests,  in  defence  of  whose 
privileges    he   was   writing.       Would    you    assert   the    perfect 

•    Hicronym.  Kvagrio.  f.  150.  Tom.  111.  Edit.  Basil. 

t    The  edition  of  Eraainus  at  Basic  has  not  the  negation. 


260  ST  JEROME. 

equality  of  the  sacerdotal  and  Episcopal  character  and  office? 
Would  you,  in  the  face  of  all  the  monuments  of  antiquity, 
maintain  ihat  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Eiigubium,  of  Alexan- 
dria and  of  Tanis,  were  distinguished  by  no  difference  of  juris- 
diction ?  The  Episcopal  character  is,  indeed,  alike  in  all ;  the 
bishop  of  Eugubium  is,  in  this  respect,  equal  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome;  but  the  governing  power,  or  jurisdiction,  widely  differs, 
for  to  the  one  the  care  of  a  small  portion  of  the  flock  of  Christ 
is  committed, — to  the  other  the  charge  of  all  the  sheep  and 
lambs  is  given. 

But  Jerome  seems  to  depreciate  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
Church. — Not  when  she  teaches  by  the  mouth  of  him  who 
occupies  the  chair  of  Peter ;  not  when,  in  harmony  with  the 
churches  of  the  universe,  she  proclaims  the  divinely  inspired 
faith,  for  which  Christ  prayed  that  it  fail  not ;  but  he  sets  aside 
the  practice  of  a  few  deacons,  who  took  occasion,  from  the 
eminence  of  that  Church  in  which  they  enjoyed  special  distinc- 
tions, to  treat  with  less  reverence  those  who  were  their  supe- 
riors in  the  sacred  ministry.  Such  customs  as  are  peculiar  to 
the  Church  of  Rome,  need  not  be  adopted  by  the  other  churches 
in  her  communion  :  and  the  abuses  of  individuals  attached  to 
that  Church  may  be  condemned,  even  by  those  who,  like 
Jerome,  cry  aloud  that  they  cling  to  the  chair  of  Peter, — who 
receive  its  faith  and  tradition  with  reverence,  and  who  cherish 
its  communion,  because  they  "  know  that  it  is  the  rock  on 
which  the  Church  was  built."  The  passages  from  this  epistle, 
which  you  consider  decisive,  are  such  in  regard  to  the  inferi- 
ority of  deacons  to  priests — but  prove  nothing  beyond  this, 
unless  you  are  willing  to  allow  the  perfect  equality  of  priests 
and  bishoj)s. 

I  have  not  partaken  in  the  surprise  which  you  anticipated 
from  the  views  of  this  Father  on  the  manner  in  which  the 
Church  was  built  on  Peter.  Jovinian  had  r.ssailed  virginity 
and  clerical  celibacy,  and,  like  some  moderns,  had  objected 
the  example  of  Peter,  who,  having  a  mother-in-law,  as  the 
Scripture  assures  us,  must  have  had  a  wife.  St  Jerome  replied 
that  his  wife  might  have  died  before  his  call  to  the  Apostleship, 


PKTKK  THK    FOI'NDATKJN.  201 

a  conjecture  rendered  |)robable  l>y  ilie  omission  (tf  all  mention  of 
her  in  Scripliire,  and  by  llie  molber-in-law  serviiijr  al  llie  table 
wlien  the  fever  Iiad  left  lier.  He  proceeded  to  sbow  lliat  John, 
on  account  of  bis  virginity,  enjoyed  the  special  love  ol  Christ, 
and  was  admitted  to  special  faniiliarily  by  the  liedecmer.  lie 
then  objects  to  himself,  that  Peter  was  chosen  to  be  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church  ;  and  ho  meets  it  by  observiiinr  ijjat  the 
Other  Apostles  likewise  received  eimilar  powers,  tliough  he 
admits  lliat,  to  prevent  scjiism,  Peter  was  chosen  to  be  the  head 
of  all.  lie  further  inquires  why  the  virgin,  John,  did  not  re- 
ceive this  distinction,  and  answers  that  the  age  of  Peter  was  a 
reason  for  preferring  him  :  "  IJut,  you  say,"  says  he,  "  the 
Church  is  founded  upon  Peter:  though  the  same  thing  is  else- 
where done  upon  all  the  Apostles,  and  all  receive  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  aiid  the  strength  of  the  Church  is  equally 
consolidated  upon  all :  yet,  neveribeless,  one  is  chosen  amongst 
the  twelve,  that  a  head  being  establisbed,  the  occasion  of  schism 
may  be  removed.  Hut  why  was  not  tlie  virgin  John  chosen? 
Regard  was  had  to  age,  because  Peter  was  the  elder,  lest  a 
very  young  man  should  be  preferred  to  men  of  advanced  age."* 
It  is  clear,  that  whilst  the  saint  advocates  so  strongly  the  ex- 
cellence of  virginity,  and  its  special  prerogatives,  he  is  careful 
to  lay  down  in  strong  and  precise  terms  the  primacy  of  Peter. 
All  the  Apostles  are,  indeed,  in  a  certain  degree  the  foundations 
of  the  Church,  since  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  which  is  the 
Church  in  glory,  it  is  said  :  "  the  wall  of  the  city  had  twelve 
foundations,  and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve  Apostles  of 
the  Lan»b."t  Hut  Peter  is  strictly  the  humdation,  since  to  him 
only,  and  not  to  tlie  others,  Christ  said  :  "  Tliou  art  Peter,  and 
on  this  rock  1  will  build  my  Church."  Ail  of  them  have  re- 
ceived the  keys  of  the  kingdom,  inasmuch  as  all  have  received 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing;  but  to  Peter  alone  was  said  : 
•♦To  thee  I  will  give  llur  keys  of  the  kingdom."  If  Jerome  could 
be  thought  to  have  allirmed  the  contrary,  we  would  ask  :  where 

•     S.  Ilior.  Adv.  J.,v.  1.  1,  p.  IT).  Tom.  111. 
t     Apoc.  xxi.  14. 


262  ST  JEROME. 

are  the  Scriptural  passages  to  wliich  he  refers?  But  his  mean- 
ing is  phiin.  He  maintains  that  similar  powers  were  granted 
to  the  others,  wherefore,  it  may  be  justly  said,  that  upon  all 
of  tlieni  the  strength  of  the  Church  rests  and  is  consoli- 
dated :  but  Peter  is  the  head,  invested  with  all  the  authority 
necessary  for  maintaining  order  and  unity  ;  a  head,  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  whom  all  |)lausible  pretext  for  schism  is  removed. 
Were  not  this  his  peculiar  privilege,  the  saint  would  have  had 
no  occasion  to  ex|)lain  why  John  was  not  chosen. 

In  his  commentary  upon  the  similitude  of  the  wise  man  who 
built  his  house  upon  a  rock,  he  observes  :  "  On  this  rock  the 
Lord  founded  the  Church  :  from  this  rock  Peter  the  Apostle 
derived  his  name.  The  foundation  which  the  Apostolic  archi- 
tect laid,  is  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  alone  :  on  this  stable  and 
firm  foundation,  and  of  itself  founded  with  a  strong  mass,  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  built."*  These  passages  no  wise  weaken 
the  force  of  the  many  others  in  which  he  treats  expressly  of 
the  foundation  of  the  Church  by  Christ  on  Peter.  In  reference 
to  the  similitude  used  by  the  Saviour,  it  was  most  natural  to 
observe,  that  he  was  the  wise  man  who  built  his  church  upon 
a  rock,  and  that  from  this  circumstance  Peter  was  styled  a 
rock.  It  would,  indeed,  be  a  strange  phrase  to  say,  that  he 
built  his  Church  upon  himself,  thus  confounding  the  architect 
with  the  foundation,  as  would  be  said  were  he  the  rock  of 
which  Jerome  speaks.  Hear  him  elsewhere  :  "As  Plato  was 
the  prince  of  philosophers,  so  was  Peter  of  the  Apostles  :  on 
him  the  Church  of  the  TiOrd,  an  enduring  structure,  was  built."t 
In  his  letter  to  Marcellus  he  says:  "Peter,  upon  whom  the 
Lord  built  his  Church. "J 

Tlie  allusion  to  the  text  of  St  Paul  presents  a  change  of 
metaphor.  In  the  former  Christ  was  the  architect,  and  Peter 
the  foundation  :  in  this  Paul  is  architect,  and  Christ  the  foun- 
dation. Metaphors  and  similitudes  admit  of  this  variety,  and 
it  would  be  unjust  to  transfer  what  regards  one  similitude  to 

*     Comm.  Mat.  c.  viii.  f.  12.  f    S.  Hier.  1.  1 ,  adv.  Pelag.  c.  4, 

t    Class.  2,  Ep.4,  n.  2. 


I'KTKK  THK   ROCK.  2G3 

anollicT,  somewhat  diircronl.  .No  man  can  lay  any  other  foiin- 
daiion  llian  Cluisl — his  duclriiie — liis  insiiiulions — i»is  merits, 
since  there  is  salvation  in  no  other  name  :  bnt  when  (.'hrist 
liiniseir  pleases  to  sj)eak  of  iiimseU"  as  architect,  the  fonnda- 
tion  which  he  lays  must  naturally  be  distinguished  from  him- 
self, iVoni  whom,  however,  it  derives  all  its  strcngtii  and  en- 
during qualities. 

The  commentary  of  Jerome  on  the  promise  of  tlie  Saviour 
lo  Peter,  plainly  establishes  this  relation  between  them.  "  What 
means,*'  asks  he,  "  *  1  say  to  thee  V  Because  thou  hast  said  to 
me  :  *  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  tlie  living  God  :  I  also  say 
to  thee  ;'  not  in  vain  discourse,  void  of  ellect,  but  I  say  to  thee, 
because  my  word  eflects  what  it  implies  :  *  that  thou  art  Peter, 
and  on  this  rock  1  will  build  my  Church.'  As  he  ga've  light  lo 
the  Aj)ostles,  that  they  might  be  called  the  light  of  the  world, 
and  they  received  oilier  appellations  from  the  Lord  :  so  also 
he  bestowed  the  name  of  Peter  on  Simon,  who  believed  in  the 
rock  Christ;  and  according  to  the  metaphor  of  a  rock,  it  is 
properly  said  to  him  :  '  1  will  build  my  Church  upon  thee, 
and  the  gates  of  iiell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.'  I  think  that 
the  gales  of  hell  are  the  vices  and  sins  of  men  ;  or  ccrlaiidy 
the  doctrines  of  heretics,  by  which  men  being  allured  are  led 
lo  hell.  Let  no  one,  therefore,  imagine  that  it  is  said  of  death, 
as  if  the  Apostles  whose  martyrdoms  he  sees  celebrated,  were 
not  subject  to  the  condition  of  death."*  Here  this  learned 
interpreter  applies  lo  l*eter  the  term  rock,  and  explains  the 
promise,  as  if  it  were  said:  I  will  build  my  Church  on  thee. 
Against  this  Church  neither  the  vices  and  sins  of  men,  nor  the 
doctrines  of  heretics,  will  prevail.  Scandals  must  come,  and 
may  obscure  the  lustre  of  the  Church,  but  they  cannot  effect 
her  overthrow  :  heresies  may  be  broached  even  by  those  who 
were  children  of  the  Church,  but  they  can  never  receive  her 
sanction,  because  ('hrist  teaciies  in  her  '*  all  days  even  to  the 
i-onsummation  of  the-  world." 

'I'he  observaiion  of  the  saint  in  regard  to  bishops  and  priests 

"     S.  Ilieron.  Com.  in  .Mnlt.Tom  IX.  f.  24,23.  E<1.  Has  an.  lolO. 


264  ST  JEROME. 

who  abused  the  power  of  the  keys,  by  rashly  loosing  those 
who  should  be  bound,  has  no  relation  to  the  point  at  issue.  It 
establishes  the  necessity  of  confession,  since,  as  Jerome  re- 
marks, the  bishop  or  priest,  "in  virtue  of  his  office,  when  he 
hears  the  various  sins,  knows  who  is  to  be  bound  or  who  is 
to  be  loosed."*  Though  the  saint  applies  the  text  in  this 
place  to  the  remission  of  sins  by  any  bishop  or  priest,  as  we 
are  wont  to  do,  when  speaking  in  general  terms,  yet  he  under- 
stands it  specially  of  power  granted  to  Peter;  wherefore, 
shortly  after,  when  commenting  on  the  rebuke  of  Christ:  "  Go 
behind  me,  Satan,"  he  supposes  his  reader  to  inquire,  how 
this  is  compatible  with  the  sublime  address  made  him,  and 
with  the  powers  conferred  on  him.  "If,"  he  answers,  "  the 
inquirer  reflect,  he  will  perceive  that  the  benediction,  and  beati- 
tude, and  power,  and  the  building  of  the  Church  upon  him, 
were  promised  to  Peter  for  a  future  time,  and  were  not  granted 
at  the  present  time  :  '  I  will  build  (he  says)  on  thee  my  Church, 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it :  and  to  thee  I 
will  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;' — all  in  the  fu- 
ture tense.  Which  had  he  given  immediately,  the  error  of  a 
perverse  confession  {Jiis  denial)  would  never  have  taken  place 
in  him."t 

I  do  not  find  in  the  edition  of  this  Father's  works  which  I 
use  (that  of  Basle,  an.  1516),  the  passage  from  the  commentary 
on  the  epistle  to  Titus  which  you  quote.  The  only  remark 
made  on  that  verse  {Jmjus  rei,  ^-c.)  is,  *'  Correct  straight  for- 
ward what  things  arc  wanting,  and  then  you  will  be  able  to 
ordain  priests,  when  all  persons  in  the  Church  will  be  up- 
right."J  However,  the  words  which  you  object  present  no 
difficulty.  They  state  that  it  is  the  privilege  of  the  Apostolic 
dignity  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  Church,  which  no  one  but  an 
architect'  can  lay,  and  that  there  is  no  other  foundation  but 
Christ  Jesus.  In  this  we  are  perfectly  agreed,  as  I  have 
already  explained.  Christ  is  the  foundation  of  our  faith  and 
of  all  our  hopes  ;  and  he  was  first  proclaimed  to  the  nations 

*     S.  Ilieronym.  Corn,  in  Matt.  Tom.  IX.  p.  24,  25. 

I     Ibid.  \     Tom.  IX.  f.  189. 


CITY  OF  uuMi;.  265 

by  llie  Aposiles,  anil  in  succeeding  ages  by  men  einulaling  llieir 
zeal,  aiul  partaking  ol  ibeir  character.  "  Inferior  w  urkujen 
may  carry  on  the  building  on  that  foundation."' 

The  argument  sought  to  be  derived  from  wliat  yon  conceive 
to  be  the  opinion  of  Jerome  in  regard  to  the  original  eijualiiy 
of  priests  and  bislioj)s,  rests  on  very  questionable  grounds. 
You  are  aware  tliat  Protestants,  no  less  than  Catliolics,  liave 
laboured  to  explain  his  sentiments  in  accordance  with  the  ge- 
neral testimony  of  tradition  on  this  point.  Dut  were  we  to 
allow  that  such  had  been  his  view  in  regard  to  the  priesily  and 
Episcopal  character,  it  would  not  militate  against  the  superior 
prerogative  of  one  priest,  or  bishop,  to  \\hom  Christ  hail  made 
a  special  promise.  It  would  indeed  suppose,  that  Peter  re- 
ceived no  more  than  the  common  character  of  priesthood,  but 
with  special  power  to  found  the  Church,  and  exercise  that 
governing  authority,  by  which,  subsequently,  according  to  this 
opinion,  the  ecclesiastical  distinction  between  priests  of  vari- 
ous orders  was  ordained,  or  sanctioned.  Not  to  wander  too 
far  from  our  subject,  and  place  weapons  in  the  hands  of  your 
Calvinistic  brethren,  tiiis  argument  may  be  set  apart. 

The  apocalyptic  expressions  of  St  Jerome  in  regard  to  Rome, 
relate  to  t!ie  luxury  and  vices  of  the  inhabitants  of  that  great 
city.  It  was  in  a  spirit  of  humiliation  that  he  referred  to  that 
period  of  life  in  which  he  lived,  "jure  (iuiritum,"  after  the 
manner  of  its  citizens,  too  much  given  to  the  follies  of  life.  He 
meant  not  at  all  to  detract  from  its  spiritual  prerogatives  as  the 
See  of  Feter,  nor  to  utter  any  thing  disrespectful  to  hiui  who 
occupies  that  chair.  On  the  contrary,  he  observed,  that  he  un- 
dertook the  work  in  obedience  to  the  holy  Pope  Damasus  : — 
"  Pope  Damasus,  who  first  had  urged  me  to  this  work,  now 
sleeps  in  Christ. "t  When  he  invited  Marcella  to  flee  from 
tliis  city  to  IJethlehem,  it  was  that,  in  solitude,  she  might  en- 
joy thai  trancpiillity  of  spirit  which  the  distractions  of  such  a 
city  so  easily   interrupted.      He    repeated  and  applied  to   her 

S.  IliiTon.  Tom.  IX.  f.  l-l'. 
t     S.  Ilieron.  ad  rauliiiianuiii  in  hb.  Didyiiti  de  Spir.  S. 


266  ST  JEROME. 

the  propiielic  order  to  go  forth  from  Babylon,  "  even  though 
Jieathenism  was  trodden  under  foot," — because  he  saw  the  vices 
of  pagan  Rome  still  cherished  by  many  of  her  Christian  citi- 
zens. You  discover  not  one  redeeming  word  of  veneration  in 
his  description.  Please  read  over  and  ponder  on  these  words : 
— "  There  is  there  indeed  a  holy  Church,  there  are  the  tro- 
phies of  the  Apostles  and  martyrs,  there  is  the  true  confession 
of  Christ,  there  is  that  faith  which  was  praised  by  the  Apos- 
tle, and  there  the  Christian  religion  is  daily  making  new  ad- 
vances over  prostrate  heathenism."* 

The  principle  which  Jerome  lays  down,  that  in  regard  to 
daily  communion,  the  fast  of  the  Sabbath,  and  such  other  things 
as  are  not  opposed  to  faith,t  the  immemorial  usages  of  each 
portion  of  the  Church  may  be  followed,  is  correct,  entirely 
worthy  of  this  enlightened  Father,  and  quite  consistent  with 
the  spirit  and  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See.  He  was  not  the 
advocate  of  what  you  so  confidently  infer  from  his  words — 
equal  rights,  and  total  absence  of  deference  for  Rome.  That 
deference  is  shown  especially  by  cherishing  her  faith,  by  ob- 
serving the  universal  discipline  of  the  Church  which  she  is 
studious  to  maintain,  and  by  maintaining  no  local  usage  to  the 
prejudice  or  endangering  of  faith. 

After  the  review  of  these  passages,  you  return  to  the  epistle 
of  Jerome  to  Pope  Damasus.  You  tell  us  that,  in  consequence 
of  the  distracted  state  of  the  East,  where  Arianism  had  prevail- 
ed, Jerome  "  turns  to  Rome,  in  which  he  had  become  a  pres- 
byter some  years  before,  and  whose  Bishop  he  was  desirous  to 
propitiate,  in  order  to  secure  a  kind  and  favourable  reception." 
Was  Jerome  then  the  sycophant  who  thus  flattered  Pontifical 
pride  ?  Did  he  not  commence  his  letter  by  bidding  "  the  pride 
of  Roman  supremacy  to  be  laid  aside,"  and  reminding  the  Pon- 
tiff that  he  is  the  successor  of  the  fisherman  ?  Did  he  employ 
the  awful  adjuration  of  the  crucified  Redeemer,  and  consub- 
stantial  Trinity,  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  gratify  the  vanity 

*  "  Est  ab  Apostolo  pracdicata  fides,  et  gentilitate  calcata,  in  sublime 
se  quotidie  erigens  vocabulum  Christianuin." — Ep.  ad  Marcellam,  Op. 
om.  Tom.  I.  p.  82.  Edit.  Par. 

t     "  PrcDsertim  quae  fidci  non  officiant." — Ep.  ad  Lucinium,  ib.  p.  126. 


ROMAN    FAITH.  267 

ol*  an  aired  Bishop  ?  I  :iin  sorry  lliat  you  liave  equally  mis- 
taken his  character  and  nieaninir.  You  adduce  Erasmus,  to 
prove  that  by  the  chair  of  Peler,  on  which  as  on  a  rock  the 
Church  was  built,  Jerome  did  not  mean  Rome:  but  can  the 
hesitating  remark**  of  a  man  of  more  than  suspected  faitli,  jus- 
tify you  in  otlering  violence  to  tlie  plain  and  positive  words  of 
this  Father?  Besides,  lOrasmus  on  the  following  words  re- 
marks :  '•  Here  Jerome  by  all  means  seems  to  think  that  all 
churches  should  he  subject  to  the  Roman  See,  or  certainly  not 
estranged  from  it,  as  it  peculiarly  glories  in  the  Apostle,  who 
held  the  Primacy  amonj^  the  Apostles  ;  and  is  orthodox  in  such 
a  way  as  to  be  the  first  in  dignity  of  the  orthodox  churches. "t 
You  explain  the  words  of  Jerome  as  nreaning:  "  I  am  not 
in  communion  with  these  heretical  Arians — our  faith  is  not  the 
same.  But  I  am  in  communion  with  you,  for  you  hold  the 
faith  of  Peter,  together  with  his  chair.  On  that  faith — that 
rock — I  know  that  the  Church  is  built,  out  of  which  Church, 
whoever  eatelh  the  lamb  is  profane." — Compare  your  words 
with  those  of  Jerome,  and  mark  their  diflerence.  He  speaks 
of  assaults  on  the  one  side  by  the  Arian  frenzy,  on  the  other  by 
conflicting  parties  in  the  Church — the  adherents  of  three  pre- 
tendants  to  the  patriarcliale.  As  to  the  Arians,  he  needed  no 
advice — he  had  no  doubts;  but  he  doubted  which  was  the  real 
patriarch;  and  he  further  doubted,  whether  he  could  profess 
three  hypostases,  which  was  required  as  a  condition  of  commu- 
nion with  the  church  of  Antioch.  He  refuses,  then,  to  com- 
municate with  any  of  the  claimants,  until  the  PonlilF  shall  in- 
form him  with  whom  he  ouglit  to  hokl  communion  ;  he  de- 
clines professing  three  hypostases,  until  he  shall  be  directed 
by  the  same  authority.  He  grounds  his  application  on  his 
knowledge,  that  the  chair  of  I'eter  is  the  rock  on  which  the 
Church  is  built.  How,  then,  r:\n  it  be  pretended,  that  it  is  the 
mere  accident  of  a  common  belief  that  leads  him  to  apply  to  the 
occupant  of  that  chuir,  more  to  flatter  him  than  to  receive  the 
necessary   nuihoriiy  and   direction!      "His    very   object,  you 

'•■  Ulnrbitror." — F.rnsmun. 

Kra.sin.  Srliolia  in  Ilicr.  fol.  (UI  Tom.  HI 


268  ST  JEROME, 

say,  was  to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  Pope,  and  obtain  an  hon- 
ourable recall  from  his  self  imposed  exile."  How  unjust  is 
this  imputation  !  how  inconsistent  with  the  evidence  which  his 
history  and  his  writings  afford  ! 

But  Jerome,  you  say,  protests  "  that  he  follows  no  primate 
but  Christ."*  Neither  do  we.  It  is  his  divine  authority  we 
reverence  and  adore  when  we  yield  obedience  to  him  whom  He 
has  entrusted  with  the  care  of  his  flock.  You  beg  us  to  con- 
sider, that  our  construction  of  this  epistle  requires  us  to  set 
Jerome  against  himself.  To  me  this  does  not  appear.  He  is 
throughout  perfectly  consistent.  In  determining  the  legitimate 
pastors  of  the  Church,  he  judges  by  their  communion  with  the 
See  of  Peter ;  in  tire  choice  of  expressions  by  which  the  doc- 
trine of  faith  is  to  be  maintained  inviolate,  he  appeals  to  its  au- 
thority. To  it  he  constantly  refers  where  faith  is  in  question. 
Thus,  twenty  years  afterwards,  writing  to  the  virgin  Demetri- 
as,  he  observed ;  "  When  you  were  a  child,  and  the  bishop 
Anastasius  of  holy  and  blessed  memory  governed  the  Roman 
Church,  a  fierce  tempest  of  heretics  from  the  eastern  parts  at- 
tempted to  pollute  and  destroy  the  simplicity  of  that  faith 
which  was  praised  by  the  voice  of  the  Apostle.  But  this  man, 
very  rich  in  his  poverty,  and  full  of  Apostolic  solicitude,  im- 
mediately struck  the  noxious  head,  and  broke  the  hissing 
mouths  of  the  hydra.  Since,  I  fear,  and  even  have  learned  by 
report,  that  these  poisoned  plants  are  still  remaining  and  ger- 
minating in  some,  I  think  you  should  be  charitably  warned,  to 
hold  the  faith  of  the  holy  Innocent,  who  is  the  successor  and 
child  of  the  Apostolic  chair,  and  of  the  holy  man  just  mention- 
ed ;  and  not  to  receive  any  strange  doctrine,  however  prudent 
and  wise  you  may  appear  to  yourself."!  Writing  to  Theophi- 
lus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  he  says  :  "  Be  it  known  to  you, 
that  nothing  is  more  sacred  for  us,  than  to  maintain  the  rights 
of  Christ,  nor  to  move  the  limits  which  the  Fathers  have  plac- 

*  "Nullum  primum  nisi  Christum  sequens." — Hier.  Damaso.  f.  GO. 
The  version  "  no  primate"  is  equivocal.  It  would  be  more  literally  ren- 
dered :  "  I  follow  no  one  first,  but  Christ." 

I     S.  Hier.  Ep.  130,  n.  IC,  clas.  4.    Edit.  Vallars. 


ADOPTION  OF   HIS  SKNTIMKNTS.  2G9 

ed,  and  always  to  bear  in  iniiui,  that  the  Komaii  I'ailli  was 
praised  by  tlie  inoulh  of  llie  Apostle,  of  wliicli  fuiili  the  Cliurcli 
of  Alexandria  glories  to  partake."*  All  this  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  liis  disregarding  the  assumption  of  some  deacons 
of  the  Church  at  Home,  and  objecting  to  them  the  contrary 
practice  of  the  Church  ihrouirhout  the  world.  His  recognition 
of  the  supreme  authority  of  iis  Hiijhoj)  is  nowise  at  variance 
with  iiis  assertion,  that  the  Episcopal  cliaractcr  is  the  same  in 
the  bishop  of  the  humblest  JSee.  He  has  not,  however,  exactly 
said,  as  you  have  imagined,  "  that  every  bishop  should  con- 
sider himself  as  Aaron,  and  the  j)rcsbyters  as  Aaron's  sons,  and 
the  deacons  as  Levites."  He  does  not  disiinguisjj  these  grades 
with  such  precision.  His  words  are:  "  Wiiat  Aaron  and  his 
sons  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  the  same  let  the 
bishops  and  priests  and  deacons  claim  for  themselves  in  the 
Churcii."t  Through  the  whole  letter  he  speaks  of  bishops 
and  priests  as  the  same  ;  hence  it  n)ight  be  fair  to  infer,  if  sucli 
comparisons  warrant  any  strict  inference,  that  the  chief  Bishop 
in  the  new  dispensation  corresjionds  with  the  High  Priest  un- 
der the  ancient  covenant. 

The  questions  which  you  have  added  towards  the  close  of 
the  chapter  are  fully  answered  by  the  exposition  of  the  texts 
already  given.  You  are  pleased  to  conclude  by  stating  your 
conviction,  "  that  if  the  ('hurch  of  Rome  would  consent  to  a 
thorough  adoption  of  the  sentiments  of  Jerome,  there  would  be 
very  little  material  for  serious  controversy  remaining."  You 
must  then  be  prej^ared  for  the  adoption  of  clerical  celibacy, 
the  veneration  of  relics,  and  many  other  i)oints  hitherto  treated 
with  little  favour,  which,  you  admit,  were  defended  by  him, 
and  yon  must  particularly  cry  oul  in  his  language  to  the  actual 
Bishop  of  Rome  :  "  Whoever  is  united  with  the  chair  of  Peter 
is  mine;  I  am  joined  in  communion  to  your  holiness,  that  is 
to  the  chair  of  Peter,  On  that  rock  I  know  that  the  Church 
wa-  built." 

•     S    Hitr.  Kp.  G:?,  clas.  :i,  an.  3!>7. 
t     Ad  Evngr.  Tr»ii)    II    i.   ',»•,*!      Ivln    I'lr 
x ' 


LETTER  XXI. 


ST  AUGUSTIN. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

I  FULLY  agree  with  you  that  "  a  brighter  name  than  that  of 
St  Augustin  can  hardly  be  found  in  the  annals  of  the  Church 
since  the  Apostolic  day."  In  some  of  his  works  he  affirmed 
that  Peter  was  the  foundation  of  the  Church  ;  but  you  main- 
tain that  he  afterwards  abandoned  this  interpretation.  For 
proof  of  this  assertion  you  refer  to  the  twenty-first  chapter  of 
the  first  book  of  his  "  Retractations  ;"  which,  as  you  know, 
designate  his  review  of  his  former  works,  accompanied  with 
the  retouching  of  the  matters  already  handled,  but  not  always 
with  the  abandonment  of  former  sentiments.  I  shall  give  the 
entire  paragraph : — "  During  the  same  period  of  my  priest- 
hood I  wrote  also  a  book  against  the  letter  of  Donatus,  who 
was  the  second  bishop  at  Carthage  after  Majorinus,  of  the 
party  of  Donatus,  in  which  letter  he  endeavours  to  prove  that 
the  baptism  of  Christ  should  be  believed  to  be  only  in  his 
communion  :  which  position  we  oppose.  In  which  book  I 
said,  in  one  place,  concerning  the  Apostle  Peter,  that  the  Church 
was  founded  on  him  as  on  a  rock  :  which  sense  is  celebrated 
by  many  mouths  in  the  verses  of  the  most  blessed  Ambrose, 
where  he  says  of  the  cock :  '  At  his  crowing  the  very  rock  of 
the  Church  washes  away  his  fault.'  But  I  know  that  after- 
wards I  very  frequently  explained  what  was  said  by  the  Lord  : 
'  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  shall  build  my  Church,' 
in  such  a  way,  that  it  might  be  understood  to  mean,  on  him 
whom  Peter  confessed,  saying:  '  Thou  art  Christ  the  Son  of 
the  living  God  :'  and  thus  Peter,  being  named  from  this  rock, 


IIESITANCV.  271 

sliould  represent  the  Churcli,  which  is  hiiilt  upon  this  rock,  and 
received  the  keys  of  the  kint;doni  of  lieaven.  For  it  was  not 
said  to  him  :  *  Thou  art  a  rock  : '  but  tliou  art  Peter ;'  ♦  but  the 
rock  was  Christ,'  on  confessing  whom,  as  the  wliole  (^'liurcli 
confesses  liim,  Simon  was  called  Peter.  Let  the  reader  choose 
which  of  tiiese  two  explanations  is  the  more  probable. "t  'Pliis, 
sir,  is  far  from  an  absolute  'abandonment'  of  the  former  inter- 
pretation. Augustin,  indeed,  seems  to  incline  to  the  second 
mode  of  undcrsiandincf  the  text,  but  he  makes  reference  to  the 
former,  and  subniiis  both  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader,  that 
he  may  adopt  the  one  that  seems  more  correct — a  circumsiance 
which  you  have  been  careful  not  to  notice.  His  own  mind 
wavered,  because  he  was  struck  with  that  difierence  of  gender 
which  he  found  in  the  Greek,  and  being  unacquainted  with  the 
language  spoken  by  our  Saviour,  he  was  unable  satisfactorily 
to  solve  for  himself  a  difficulty  which  a  slight  knowledge  of 
that  language  would  have  entirely  dissipated.  You  would 
willingly  abridge  the  liberty  which  the  holy  doctor,  in  the  un- 
certainty of  his  own  mind,  left  to  his  readers,  and  you  would 
determine  our  judgment  contrary  to  the  most  obvious  rules  of 
sound  interpretation.  We  respect  the  modesty  of  Augustin  in 
manifesting  the  hesitancy  of  his  mind.  Of  the  two  explana- 
tions which  he  offers,  we  adopt  that  which  is  most  obvious, 
most  conformable  to  the  context,  and  supported  by  the  suffrages 
of  the  ffrcal  host  of  ancient  and  modern  interpreters.  Besides 
the  Protestant  interpreters  already  produced, |  liishop  Pearson 
expressly  says,  that  the  Church  was  "  built  upon  Peter  accord- 
ing to  our  Saviour's  promise;")  and  Bishop  Beveridge,  not 
venturing  to  deny  this,  vainly  attempts,  contrary  to  the  mani- 
fest tenor  of  the  Lord's  discourse,  addressed  specially  to  Peter, 
to  extend  it  to  the  other  Apostles  :  *'  I  also  say  unto  thee,  thou 
art  Peter  (a  rock  as  the  word  signifies),  and  upon  this   rock  1 

■     I'ctra — I'ctrus. 

t     "  Ilarum  autorn  duarum  Bcntentiarum  qumsit  probabiliorcligat  lec- 
tor."    S.  Aug.  1.1,  Retract,  c.  xx'i. 
\     See  Letter  II.  pp.  iiJ.  2i'>,  27,  2-. 
§     PeaTBon  on  the  Creed,  art.  ix.  p.  r)UO. 


272  ST  AUGUSTIN. 

will  build  my  Church;  that  is,  thou  shalt  be  one  of  those  upon 
whom  I  will  build  my  Church,  like  an  house  upon  a  rock  that 
shall  never  be  moved."*  In  the  days  of  Augustine,  Ambrose, 
whose  canticle  he  quotes,  declares  Peter  to  be  "  the  very  rock 
of  the  Church,"  and  this  interpretation  was  recognised  as  cor- 
rect by  the  many,  who,  throughout  the  Church,  sang  the  hymn 
composed  by  that  sainted  prelate.  Was  it  perfectly  fair  in 
you  to  have  concealed  this  fact  from  your  readers,  by  leaving 
a  hiatus  in  your  quotation  ? 

Though  Augustin  wavered  as  to  the  application  of  the  term 
"rock"  in  this  passage,  he  had  no  doubt  whatever  of  the  pri- 
macy of  Peter.  In  his  polemical  works  against  the  Donatists, 
he  declines  abiding  by  the  authority  of  Cyprian,  and  justifies 
himself  by  observing,  that  even  Peter — whom  he  takes  to  be 
Cephas,  mentioned  by  St  Paul  to  the  Galatians — did,  in  one 
instance,  deviate  from  the  correct  path ;  and  so  Cyprian  might 
be  admitted  to  have  erred,  without  any  disrespect  to  his 
memory.  "  I  think,"  says  he,  "  that  without  any  disrespect 
to  him,  the  bishop  Cyprian  is  compared  with  the  Apostle 
Peter,  as  far  as  regards  the  crown  of  martyrdom  :  but  I  ought 
rather  to  fear  lest  I  should  be  disrespectful  to  Peter:  for  who 
does  not  know  that  the  principality  of  the  apostleship  is 

TO  BE  I'-REFERRED  TO  ANY  BISHOPRIC  ?"t 

When  Augustin  says  of  the  Lord  :  "  that  he  gave  those  keys 
therefore  to  his  Church,  that  those  things  wiiich  she  should 
loose  on  earth  should  be  loosed  in  heaven,  and  that  those  which 
she  should  bind  on  earth  should  be  bound  in  heaven, "J — he 
speaks  of  the  power  as  existing  in  the  Church,  without  specify- 
ing in  wiiom  it  is  lodged.  He  adds,  by  way  of  explanation, 
"  that  whosoever  would  not  believe  that  his  sins  are  forgiven  in 

*  Beveridge's  Serm.  Christ's  Church  Established  on  a  Rock,  vol.  i. 
p.  155. 

t  S.  Aug.  1.  ii.  contra  Donat.  c.  i.  §  2.  "  Quis  enim  nescit  ^llum 
Apostolatus  principatuni  cuilibet  episcopatui  prseferendum  ?"  A  differ- 
ent reading  is  given  in  a  Belgic  manuscript  apud  Lov.  *'  Ilium  Apostola- 
tus principatu  cujuslibet  episcopatui  praeferendum." 

;     L.  i.  de  doct.  Christ.  C.  xv.  p.  10.  Edit.  Ven. 


ALLEGORICAL  INTKUPRE TATION.  273 

the  Church,  ihey  slioukl  not  be  rortriven  liiiii  ;  but  wliosoevcr 
believed  it,  and,  being  corrected,  turned  away  Ironi  sin,  being  in 
the  bosom  of  the  same  Cliurch,  should  be  healed  by  the  same 
faith  and  reformation." — This  does  not  at  all  signify  tliat  the 
keys  are  given  to  each  individual  ;  but  it  aflirms  that  no  one 
can  benetit  by  this  power,  unless  lie  truly  believe  its  existence 
in  the  Church,  and  also  abandon  the  vices  to  which  he  has 
been  subject.  'i'his  faith  and  reformation  j)repare  him  for 
receiving  the  benefit  of  this  divine  power  in  the  tribunal  of 
penance. 

The  passage  which  you  object  from  the  commentary  on  the 
twenty-first  chapter  of  JSt  John,  contains  the  explanation  of  the 
rock,  which  Augustin  gave,  under  tlie  erroneous  impression, 
tliat  the  change  of  gender  was  intended  to  denote  the  distinction 
of  the  persons,  lie  proposes  to  himself  the  question,  why 
Peter  is  ordered  to  follow  Christ,  and  John  is  directed  to  re- 
main until  his  coming:  also,  why  Peter,  who  loved  Christ 
more  than  the  other  Apostles,  was  not  rewarded  with  the  love 
of  his  Divine  blaster  in  a  greater  degree  than  the  others,  John 
being  styled  "  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."  lie  answers, 
that  Peter  was  a  figure  of  the  Church  in  her  present  state  of 
misery  and  infirmity,  which  is  directed  to  follow  Christ,  by 
ardent  love  and  patient  sulfering,  to  the  kingdom  of  his  beati- 
tude ;  but  that  John  was  the  figure  of  the  saints  in  glory,  who 
are  loved  by  Christ,  and  abide  tranquilly  in  his  enjoyment: 
"  which  two  lives  Peter  and  John  tyj)ified,  each  of  them  one." 
Whilst  indulging  in  this  allegorical  interpretation,  he  observes 
that,  amidst  the  frailties  and  miseries  of  life, — *'  we  are  pro- 
vided with  the  succours  of  alms,  to  ensure  the  success  of  our 
prayer:  forgive  us  our  'trespasses  as  we  forgive  those  who 
trespass  against  us.'"  "The  Cliurch,  haj)py  in  hope,  does 
this  in  this  wretched  life:  of  which  Church  Peter  the  Apostle, 
oti  account  of  the  Priinacij  of  his  ^Opost/c.s/np,  sustained  the 
perscfn,  in  a  figurative  universality.  F'or,  as  to  what  strictly 
regards  himself,  he  was  by  nature  an  individual  man,  by  grace 
an  individual  Christian  ;  but,  by  more  abundant  grace,  he  was 
an  Apostle,  and  the  first:  but  when  it  was  said  to  him:   '  To 


274  ST  AUGUSTIN. 

thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven ; 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  also 
in  heaven,' — he  represented  the  whole  Church,  which  in  this 
world  is  agitated  by  various  temptations,  as  by  showers,  floods, 
and  tempests,  and  which  does  not  fall,  because  it  is  founded  on 
the  rock  whence  Peter  derived  his  name.*  What  follows  is 
but  the  development  of  this  idea,  as  already  set  forth  in  the 
passage  from  the  book  of  retractations.  Every  one  must  see, 
that  the  holy  doctor  gives  an  allegorical,  and  not  a  literal  inter- 
pretation, when  he  says  that  Peter,  by  a  figurative  universality, 
represented  the  Church  militant — the  whole  collection  of  be- 
lievers in  the  present  state  of  imperfection  and  misery — espe- 
cially meaning  thereby  to  prove  that  the  words  '^follow  me," 
are  to  be  considered  as  addressed  to  this  same  universal  multi- 
tude of  believers.  Yet  he  is  careful  to  state  why,  above  all  the 
other  Apostles,  he  was  the  representative  of  this  Church  mili- 
tant:  "  On  account  of  the  Primacy  of  his  Apostleship" — "be- 
cause he  was  the  first  Apostle. "t  As  by  his  application  to  all 
the  faithful  of  the  words  "follow  me,"  Augustin  could  not 
mean  to  deny,  that  they  were  primarily  and  literally  addressed 
to  Peter ;  so  by  his  application  to  them  of  the  words :  "  To 
thee  I  shall  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven," — he  did 
not  signify,  that  these  keys  were  not  primarily,  and  in  the  ob- 
vious meaning  of  power  and  authority,  given  to  Peter.  The 
reason  of  his  generalizing  them  is  to  sustain  his  position,  that 
the  Church,  in  its  present  state,  in  which  it  needs  the  remission 
of  sin,  is  signified  by  this  Apostle:  "Therefore,"  says  he,  "the 
Church,  which  is  founded  on  Christ,  received,  through  Peter, 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  is,  the  power  of  bind- 
ing and  loosing  sins.  For  what  the  Church  is,  strictly  speak- 
ing,:}: in  Christ,  Peter  is  the  same  mystically  in  the  rock  :   ac- 

*  S.  Aug.  Tract.  124,  in  c.  21.  Joan.  Ev.  Tom.  III.  Col.  822.  Edit, 
Ven. 

t  "  Cujus  Ecclesioe  Petrus  Apostolus,  propter  Apostolatus  sui  prima- 
tum,  gerebat  figurata  generalitate  personam." — lb.  Col.  822. 

t    "  Quod  est  enim  per  proprietatem  in  Christo  Ecclesia,  hoc  est  per 


FIRST  OF  TIIK  AP08TLKS.  *-i75 

cordiii«^  to  w"«Jii(li  t-i»fnitH':Ui'>n  ('lirisi  is  llie  rock,  Peter  the 
Cluirch.  This  Church,  lliLTtifDrc,  which  Peler  represented,  as 
long  as  she  is  in  the  niiilst  of  evils,  is  freed  from  evils,  hy  lov- 
ing anil  foHouing  Christ.  And  she  follows  him,  especially  by 
means  of  those  who  contend  unto  death  for  the  truth.  But  to 
the  multitude  is  said,  'follow  me,'  for  which  multitude  (^hrist 
suffered."*'  In  j)ursuino  this  alle<][orical  explanation,  Augustine 
evidently  presupposes  that  the  keys  were  given  to  Peter,  and 
that  through  himt  the  Church  received  them,  inasmuch  as  not 
for  himself  only — "  an  individual  man,  an  individual  Christian" 
— but  for  all  the  Church,  he,  who  was  "an  Apostle,  and  first 
of  the  Apostles,"  received  this  power.J  *' For  all  the  saints," 
says  he,  "  inseparably  belonging  to  the  body  of  ('lirist,  Peter, 
THE  FIRST  OF  THE  AposTLES,  rcccived  the  keys  of  the  kingdom, 
for  its  government  in  this  most  tempestuous  life,  to  bind  and 
loose  sins :§  and  with  reference  to  the  same  saints,  John  the 
Evangelist  reclined  on  the  bosom  of  Christ,  to  express  the 
most  tranquil  repose  of  this  most  secret  life"  with  (lod.  Some- 
what further  on  you  assert  that  Augustine  "extended  the  same 
representative  capacity  to  John,"  and  you  quote  freely  from 
ihis  commeiiiary  on  the  iweniy-tirst  chapter  ol"  the  evangelist, 
lo  prove  tiiis  position:  but  you  should  have  observed,  that  John 

significationcm  Petrus  in  potra;  qua  significationc  inlclli<iitur  Christus 
petra,  Petrus  Ecck-sia." — lb. 

*    "Sod  universitali  dicitur  :  soquere  me." 

t  "  Ecclesia  ergo  qua;  fundatur  in  Chrislo,  claves  ab  eo  rcgni  ca'Io- 
rum  accepit  in  Petro,  id  est  potcstatem  ligandi  solvendique  peccata." 
—Aug.  Tract.  124,  in  Joan.  Col.  b22. 

\  Quo(]  enini  ad  ipsuin  proprie  pcrtinot,  natura  iinus  homo  crat,  gra- 
tia unus  Clirislianus,  abundanliore  gratia  unus  idnnquc  primus  .Iposto- 
Ins:  sod  quando  ti  dictum  est.  Tibi  dabo  claves  regni  ca'loruin,  el 
(juodcurnque  li^averis  in  terra,  <rit  ligaluin  vi  in  cadis,  et  qui)drumque 
solveris  super  terrain,  erit  sfilntuin  ct  in  ctrlis,  universarn  .sicrnifieab.it 
cclesiain." — lb. 

§  "  Omnibus  igitur  sancli.s  ad  Cliristi  C(jrj)us  inseparabiliter  perlint  n- 
tibu.s,  propter  liujus  vitie  procello.si.HHimic  gubernacuium,  ad  liganda  et 
Bolvenda  peccata  claves  regni  codorum  primus  Apostolorum  Petrus  ac- 
cepit."— lb.  Col.  h24.  The  C/hurcli  is  here  represented  as  a  ship  whose 
helm  has  been  entrusted  by  Christ  to  Peter. 


2Tt»  ST  AVGUSTIX. 

is  not  spoken  of  as  the  representative  of  the  Cliurcli  militant, 
which  representative  capacity  is  peculiarly  assigned  by  the 
holy  doctor  to  Peter,  "  on  account  of  the  primacy  of  his  Apos- 
tleship.''  John  is  said  to  represent  or  signify  the  Church 
triumphant,  inasmuch  as,  reposing  on  the  bosom  of  Jesus,  he 
presents  an  image  of  the  happiness  of  the  saints  reposing  in  the 
enjoyment  of  God.  The  representative  character  of  Peter  is 
clearly  marked  as  official  and  authoritative,  directed  to  the 
government  of  the  Church  militant  in  this  stormy  life  :  he  is 
the  pilot  placed  by  Christ  at  the  helm  ; — he  is  the  ruler,  having 
received  from  Christ  the  keys  of  his  kingdom.  But  the  repose 
of  John  is  merely  emblematic  of  heavenly  beatitude.  "^Yhocan 
confound  what  is  so  clearly  distinguished  in  the  Scripture,  as 
well  as  by  Augustin  ? 

The  passage  which  you  object  from  the  commentary  on  the 
lifth  chapter  of  the  first  epistle  of  John,  is  the  explanation  of 
the  text :  "  every  one  who  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is 
born  of  God."  The  saint  observes  that  demons  confessed  this 
truth  no  less  than  Peter,  but  Peter  through  affection.  To  the 
question  of  our  Saviour — '•  'Who  do  men  say  that  I  am  V  Peter 
answered,  and  said:  'Thou  art  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living 
God.'  And  he  heard  from  the  Lord  :  '  B^sed  art  thou  Simon 
Bar-jona,  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  rerealed  it  to  thee,  but 
my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.' — See  what  praises  follow  this 
faith :  '  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church.' — V.'hat  is  it:  'On  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church  T 
On  this  faith — on  what  was  said:  'Thou  art  Christ  the  Son  of 
the  living  God.'  On  this  rock,  he  says,  I  will  found  my 
Church.  This  is  great  praise."*  In  this  place  it  is  manifest 
that  Augustin  approaches  nearer  the  general  interpretation  of 
the  Fathers,  and  the  natural  meaning  of  the  text.  It  is  no  lon- 
ger on  Christ  that  the  Cliurch  is  understood  by  him  to  be  built 
by  Christ — an  incongruity  of  phrase  which  must  strike  every 
one — but  it  is  on  the  confession  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as 


Aug.  in  Ep.  Joan.  c.  5,  Tract.  10.  Tom.  III.  Col.  804.  Edit.  Venet. 


PRINCEDOM  OF  THE  AP0STLES1IIP.  277 

made  by  Peier,  or  in  other  words,  on  Peter  confessin?  his 
divinity. 

In  the  passage  which  you  have  quoted  from  the  seventy- 
sixth  sermon  on  the  fourteenth  cliaptcr  of  St  Mattliew,  Angus- 
tin  indulges  a  little  in  what  the  taste  of  his  age  permitted,  a 
play  on  the  words  *'/^e/rw«"  and  **/)e/ra;"  and  concludes  the 
paragraph  by  giving,  as  the  meaning  of  our  Redeemer:  "On 
myself,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  I  will  build  my  Church.  I 
will  build  thee  on  me,  not  me  on  thee."'  It  is  injustice  to 
Augustin  to  adduce  this  specimen  of  his  biblical  criticism, 
arising  from  a  want  of  knowledge  of  the  original  binguage  in 
wliich  our  Lord  spoke:  but  it  is  still  niore  unjust  to  use  it 
as  a  proof  that  he  disbelieved  the  primacy  of  Peter,  which,  in 
the  very  passage  itself,  he  supposes,  and  in  the  context 
most  strongly  affirms.  Thus  he  says  here,  that  *'  he  was 
called  Peter,  to  signify  the  Church,  for,  because  Christ  is 
the  rock,  the  Christian  people  is  Peter,  for  the  rock  is  the 
principal  name,  therefore  Peter  from  petra  the  rock,  as  Christ 
is  not  called  from  the  Christian,  but  the  Christian  from  Christ."t 
In  regarding  Peter  as  the  representative  of  the  entire  Church, 
he  evidently  considers  him  as  its  head  and  Primate,  as  he  him- 
self thus  explains:  "The  same  Peter  by  the  rock  surnamed 
blessed,  bearing  the  figure  of  the  Church,  holding  the  prince- 
dom OF  THE  AposTLEsnip — after  he  heard  of  tlie  future  passion 
of  the  Lord,  which  he  foretold  to  his  disciples  would  soon  take 
place,  displeased  him.":;  He  calls  him  repeatedly  "first  and 
chief  in  the  order  of  the  Apostles."} 

When  the  holy  doctor,  in  the  commentary  on  the  twenty- 
first  chapter  of  John,  says,  that  "  not  only  Peter,  but  the  entire 
Church,  binds  and  looses  sins,"  it  is  because  the  power  of 

•    Serm.  76,  alias  13  de  verbis  Domini,  p.  415.  Tom.  V.  Edit.  Ven. 

f    lb  Col.  415. 

\  "  Ecclesice  figuram  portans,  Aposlolatus  principatum  tenens." — P. 
416.  Tom   V.    Ed.  Ven. 

§     "  Ipse  enim  Petrua  in  ordtnc  Apostolorum  primus" — "  in  illo  ergo 
uno  Apostolo,  id  est,  Petro,  in  ordme  Apostolorum  primo  et  prsecipuo." 
—lb.  Col.  415,  4 IC. 
Y 


278  ST  AUGUSTIN. 

Peter  was  not  personal,  for  llie  exaltation  of  himself,  but  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Church  at  large,  wherefore  it  is  exercised  by 
his  successors ;  and  because  it  is  common,  as  far  as  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  concerned,  to  the  Apostles,  and  to  all  legitimate 
pastors  of  the  Church,  to  whom  that  power  was  granted  ex- 
pressly by  Christ.  Hence  Auguslin  asks  :  "  Are  not  these  keys 
in  the  Church  where  sins  are  forgiven  daily?  But  since  Peter, 
in  signification,  represented  the  Church,  what  was  given  to  him 
individually,  was  given  to  the  Cluirch."*  In  this  sense  he 
says  elsewhere  :  "  On  account  of  the  person  of  the  whole 
Church,  which  he  alone  represented,  he  was  made  worthy  to 
hear :  '  1  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
Not  an  individual  man,  but  the  unity  of  the  Church  received 
these  keys.  Hence,  therefore,  the  excellence  of  peter  is 
PROCLAIMED,  bccause  he  represented  the  universality  and  unity 
of  the  Church,  when  it  was  said  to  liim :  '  I  give  to  thee,'  what 
was  given  to  all.  For  that  you  may  know  that  the  Church  has 
received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  hear  what  the  Lord 
says  elsewhere  to  all  his  Apostles  :  '  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost.'  And  immediately  afterwards  :  '  Whose  sins  you  shall 
fortrive  they  are  forgiven  them ;  whose  sins  you  shall  retain 
they  are  retained.'  This  appertains  to  the  keys,  of  which  it 
is  said  :  '  Whatsoever  you  shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed 
also  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  you  shall  bind  on  earth,  shall 
be  bound  also  in  heaven.'  "t 

The  application  which  Augustin  makes  to  all  prelates  of 
the  command  to  feed  the  sheep,  is  an  extension  of  its  meaning, 
made,  in  the  general  style  of  the  Fathers,  for  purposes  of 
edification,  and  is  not  at  all  adverse  to  the  literal  sense,  which, 
on  t!ie  contrary,  it  presupposes.  It  is  because  "in  Peter  alone 
the  unity  of  all  pastors  was  represented. "J  "Justly  did  the 
Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  entrust  to  Peter  the  feeding  of  his 

*     S.  Aug.  Serin.  149,  de  verbis  Act.  10,  p.  70C.  Tom.  V. 
t     S.  Aug.  Serm.  29G,  in  Natali  Apost.  1. 

X  S.  Aug.  Serm.  147,  de  verbis  Evang.  "  In  uno  Petro  figurabatur 
unitas  omnium  pastorum."     P.  702.  Tom.  V.  Ed.  Ven. 


CATHOLICITY  OF  TJIE   CHI'RCH.  279 

slieep ;  for  he  was  not  the  only  one  among  the  disciples  who 
was  maile  worthy  to  feed  the  sheep  of  the  Lord  :  but  when 
Christ  speaks  to  one,  unity  is  conirnended:  and  to  Peter  pri- 
marily, because  he  is  the  first  amonh;  thk  Apostles."* 

When  Augustin  observes  that  "what  was  commended  to 
Peter — w)iat  was  enjoined  on  Peter — not  Peter  only,  but  like- 
wise all  the  Apostles  heard,  held,  kept,  and  especially  that 
companion  of  his  mart\  rdoni — even  as  to  the  day — the  Aiios- 
tle  Paul,"t — lie  slates  what  all  admit,  that  the  other  Apos- 
tles emulated  the  zeal  of  l*eler  in  feeding  the  ilock  of  Christ; 
but  he  does  not  assert  that  the  general  charge  of  it  was  common 
to  all.  It  was  not  a  commission,  the  exercise  of  which  was  to 
be  confined  to  Peter  exclusively,  though  it  was  his  office  to 
see  that  his  colleagues  fed  that  portion  of  the  flock  of  Christ 
assigned  to  each.:{:  He  and  they  were  to  concur  in  this  divine 
task,  and  the  power  and  the  duties  were  to  be  perpetual  in  the 
Church,  her  prelates  at  all  times  being  charged  to  give  to  others 
the  food  of  heavenly  doctrine,  which,  as  a  divine  deposit,  is 
transmitted  to  them:  wherefore  Augustin  beautifully  says: 
"  We  feed:  we  are  fed  in  common  with  you."  But  "blessed 
Peter,  the  first  of  the  Ai'ostles,"§  is  the  Chief  Pastor,  who 
directly  from  Christ  received  his  authority  and  charge. 

The  passages  of  Augustin  which  relate  to  the  catholicity  of 
the  ('hurcli,  might,  as  you  justly  observe,  be  quoted  in  such  a 
number  as  to  fill  a  volume  :  but  you  must  have  read  them  rather 
cursorily,  if  you  have  not  perceived  "the  slightest  allusion  to" 
the  supremacy,  or,  if  you  will,  "  the  domination  of  the  iloman 
See."  Some  of  the  references  to  that  See  may,  probably,  have 
escaped  your  notice,  from  the  African  custom  of  speaking  of 
the  Koinan  Church,  and  the  Western  churches,  in  its  commu- 
nion, as  the  churches  beyond  the  seas.      With   regard   to   Car- 

"  *'  Quando  Christus  ad  unum  loquitur,  unitns  coininondntur  ;  ot  Pe- 
tro  priinilutt,  quia  in  Apostolis  I'etrus  est  primus." — Sena.  2UlJ,  p.  Il'.>5. 
Tom.  V. 

t    Scrra.  in  Natali  Ap.  Petri  ct  Pauli,  Tom.  V.  p.  S'M). 

t    "  Food  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you" — 1  Pet.  v.  2. 

§     "  lieatus  Petrus  Apostolorum  primus." — St-rm.  li'.MJ.  sub  initium. 


280  ST  AUGUSTIN. 

thage,  Augustin  remarks,  that  "  the  city  was  convenient  to  the 
regions  beyond  the  seas,  and  of  illustrious  renown  :  wherefore 
its  bishop  had  no  small  authority,  and  might  disregard  the 
combined  multitude  of  his  enemies,  when  he  saw  himself  united, 
by  letters  of  communion,  to  the  Roman  Church,  in  which 

THE  PRINCEDOM  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHAIR  ALWAYS   FLOURISHED, 

and  to  Other  countries  from  wliich  the  Gospel  came  to  Africa, 
where  he  was  ready  also  to  plead  his  cause,  if  his  adversaries 
should  endeavour  to  estrange  these  churches  from  him."*  In  the 
passage  which  you  quote  from  the  Council  of  Zerta,  which  you 
call  Tertensian,  the  saint  states  that  the  Donatists  *'  acknowledged 
they  had  nothing  to  allege  against  the  Catholic  Church,  which  is 
spread  throughout  the  world. t"  By  this  they  meant  the  Church 
in  communion  with  the  Roman  See,  as  may  be  learned  from  the 
sequel  of  the  letter,  in  which  the  prelates,  in  whose  name  it  was 
written  by  Augustin,  observe  that  the  Donatists,  when  pressed 
in  regard  to  some  charges,  pleaded  that  one  cause  or  person 
should  not  be  suffered  to  create  prejudice  against  another  cause 
or  person  ;  and  thus  "  they  confirmed  by  their  own  words  what 
we  before  said  concerning  the  Church,  that  the  cause  and  per- 
son of  Cecilian,  whatever  it  might  be,  could  not  prejudice  not 
only  the  Catholic  Church  beyond  tiie  seas,  against  which  they 
acknowledged  that  they  had  nothing  to  allege,  but  even  the 
African  Catholic  Church  which  is  united  with  it  in  commu- 
nion."J  In  his  book  against  Petilian,  he  explains  more  pre- 
cisely what  Church  beyond  the  seas  is  that  with  which  the 
African  was  united:  "If,"  says  he,  "all  throughout  the  whole 
world  were  such  as  thou  most  wantonly  assertest,  what  has 

*  S.  Aug.  ad  Glorium  et  Eleusium  Ep.  43.  Olim  1C2,  p.  92.  Tom.  II. 
Ed.  Ven. 

t  "  Confess!  sunt  enim  contra  ecclesiam  Catholicam,  quK  toto  ter- 
rarum  orbe  difFunditur,  nihil  se  habere  quod  dicerent." — Cone.  Zertens. 
Ep  ad  Donat.  inter  opera  Aug.  Tom.  II.  p.  457.  Bishop  Hopkins  gives 
a  strange  translation  :  <'  They  have  made  their  confession  against  the 
Catholic  Church,  which  is  diffused  throughout  the  whole  world,  and  have 
no  wore  that  they  can  say." 

t     S.  Aug.  Ep.  142.  Tom.  II.  p.  4G2. 


COMMUNION-   WITH  THi:    ROMAN  CHrUCII.  281 

been  done  lo  thee  by  the  C'luiir  of  the  Koiuan  (.'luirch,  in  whicli 
Peter  sat,  and  in  wbicb  Anastasius  sits  at  this  day,  or  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  in  wliich  James  sat,  and  in  which  John 
now  sits  :  with  which  we  are  joined  in  (Jathoiic  iiuity,  and  from 
which  you  separated  yourselves  through  impious  frenzy  ?"• 

In  the  letter  to  Saturnine  and  Euphrates,  in  which  Augus- 
tin  congratulates  them  on  their  return  to  the  Church,  he  ob- 
serves, that  "  this  house  of  God  is  not  confined  to  one  corner 
of  the  earth,  but  spread  throughout  the  world."  Having  prov- 
ed it  by  many  passages  of  Scripture,  he  adds  :  '*  The  enemies 
of  this  great  house  yielded  to  tliese  and  sucii  like  testimonies, 
of  which  so  many  are  found  throughout  the  whole  Scripture, 
so  far  as  to  acknowledge  that  they  had  no  cause  of  complaint 
against  the  church  beyond  the  seas,  which,  nevertheless,  they 
confessed  to  be  Catholic.  We  communicate  with  this  church, 
that  we  may  be  made  worthy  to  be  united  to  the  members  of 
Christ."t 

In  reference  to  the  investigation  which  took  place  at  Rome 
under  Melchiades,  in  regard  to  Cecilian,  St  Augustin  writing 
to  those  of  Cirta  proposes  this  dilemma: — "Let  them  reflect 
on  this  very  short,  and  if  I  mistake  not,  decisive  point — that 
either  the  case  has  been  investigated  in  the  ecclesiastical  trial 
beyond  the  seas,  or  it  lias  not.  If  it  has  not  been  investigated, 
the  Christian  society  throughout  all  the  nations  beyond  the 
seas  is  innocent,  of  wh.ich  society  we  enjoy  the  communion  ; 
and  therefore  thry  (the  Donatists)  are  separated  certainly  by 
a  sacrilegious  rupture  from  those  innocent  men.  If  the  cause 
has  been  tliere  investigated,  who  does  not  understand — who 
does  not  perceive — ^wlio  does  not  see — that  they  with  whom 
communion  was  from  that  lime  interrupted,  were  overcome  in 
the  investigation  ?'\; 

From  the  passage  ycni  have  given  from  the  letter  of  Augus- 
tin to  Hesychius,  '^  on  the  end  of  the  world, ''^  as   "  a  specimen 


•     L.  ii.  contra.  Lilt.  Pctiliani.  c.  1.  p.  Q.')!.    Ed.  Ven. 

t     Kp.  142.    Tom.  II.  p.  4t;j 

X     S.  Aug.  Cirtcnsibus,  Ep    lU.  p.  \i'0.     Tom.  II.  Edit   Ven. 


282  ST  AUGUSTIN. 

of  his  views  in  regard  to  Roman  supremacy,"  most  readers 
would  imagine  that  he  maintained,  some  nations  had  received 
the  faith  without  submitting  to  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of 
Reme.  Yet  he  speaks  of  the  fulfilment  of  propliecy  in  the  con- 
version of  nations,  and  in  this  sense,  he  observes,  that  "the 
Lord  with  an  oath  promised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  not  the 
Romans  alone,  but  all  nations,  in  consequence  of  which  pro- 
mise it  has  already  happened  that  some  nations,  which  are  not 
included  in  the  Roman  empire,  received  the  Gospel,  and  were 
united  to  the  Church  which  fructifies  and  increases  in  the 
whole  world."* — He  states,  that  "  there  are  in  Africa  number- 
less barbarous  nations,  in  which  the  Gospel  has  not  yet  been 
preached — and  who  are  not  all  under  the  Roman  power,"  but 
who,  nevertheless,  are  embraced  within  the  divine  promise. 
Could  I  believe  that  you  introduced  the  passage  which  you 
have  quoted  with  a  view  to  give  your  readers  to  understand 
that  Augustin  vindicated  Christian  nations  from  the  authority 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  I  could  not  give  you  credit  for  the  can- 
dour which  you  claim,  and  which  never  should  be  wanting  in 
honourable  controversy. 

The  advice  given  by  St  Augustin  to  Casulanus,  which  you 
object  as  adverse  to  the  primacy,  is  in  conformity  with  the  au- 
thority and  practice  of  his  master  St  Ambrose,  and  in  perfect 
harmony  with  our  principles,  as  has  been  already  shown.  The 
fast  of  Saturday,  observed  at  Rome,  was  obligatory  on  the  faith- 
ful of  that  Church,  either  by  positive  enactment,  or  ancient 
usage,  having  the  force  of  law  ;  but  its  obligation  did  not  neces- 
sarily extend  to  all  the  churches  of  the  universe,  because  no 
general  law  had  been  then  made  to  that  effect.  Where  the 
usage  did  not  exist,  the  faithful  were  at  liberty  to  conform  to 
the  discipline  of  their  respective  churches  for  the  reason  which 
Augustin  thus  assigns  :  "  for  in  those  matters  wherein  the  Di- 
vine Scripture  determines  nothing,  the  custom  of  the  people  of 
God,  or  the  institutions  of  our  forefathers,  are  to  be  regarded  as 

*  Ep.  199,  ad  Hesychium  de  fine  scec.  p.  758.  ''  Qugb  non  tenentur 
ditione  Romana." 


DOCTRINAL  Tinm  NAI..  283 

law."*  In  tliis  epistle,  llie  holy  doctor  quotes  ilie  words  ol' 
lliose  who  urged  the  practice  on  the  ground  that  "  I*eter,  head 
of  the  Apostles,  gate-keeper  of  heaven,  and  foundation  of  the 
Churcli,  taught  its  observance  to  the  Romans,  whose  faith  is  pro- 
claimed throughout  the  entire  world."  He  does  not  dis;pute  these 
titles  ;  but  as  the  fast  was  not  generally  established,  he  recom- 
mends the  iuHtation  of  the  harmony  which  existed  between 
Peter  and  his  colleagues.  "  As,  therefore,"  says  he,  "  Peter 
aud  liis  irllow  disciples  lived  harmoniously,  so  let  those  who 
fast  on  Saturday,  whom  Peter  |)lanl('d,  and  those  who  dine  on 
Saturday,  whom  his  fellow  disciples  planted,  live  in  harmony. "t 
The  concluding  recommendation,  to  follow  in  such  matters  the 
custom  of  particular  churches,  and  the  authority  of  the  bishop, 
is  the  same  as  would  be  given  at  this  day  by  every  divine  in 
the  Catholic  communion.  You  need  only  refer  to  any  of  our 
moral  theologians. | 

Your  last  argument  from  Augustin,  is  taken  from  his  list  of 
heresies.  You  cannot  persuade  yourself  that  a  doctrinal  tri- 
bunal, such  as  we  believe,  was  generally  acknowledged  in  the 
early  ages,  wherein  so  many  heresies  prevailed  :  although  you 
acknowledge  that  several  of  them  existed  even  in  the  days  of 
the  Apostles;  and  surely  you  must  admit  that  there  was  then, 
at  least,  a  teaching  authority,  capable  of  defining  revealed  truth, 
and  proscribing  error.  'J'he  history  of  the  Church  testifies 
how  efhcient  the  authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Home  was  in  this 
regard  ;  and  the  learned  Protestinl,  C'asaubon,  admits  that  "  no 
one  w  ho  is  the  least  versed  in  ecclesiastical  Ijistory,  can  doubt 
that  (iod  made  use  of  the  Holy  See,  during  many  ages,  to  pre- 
serve the  doctrines  of  faith. "§  'J'he  pride,  corruption,  and 
ignorance  of  men,  explain  how  heresies  multiplied,  notwith- 
standing the  recognition  of  a  divinely  established  tribunal. 
You  allege,  that  among  the  eighty-eight  heresies,  not  one  sen- 

•     8.  Au{r.  Casulano,  Ep.  3(;.    Tom.  II.  p.  0)8.  i      Ibid. 

t  See  Th*'ol.  Mor.  1*.  Thornn'  n  C'liarincs.  tract,  de  legibus.  Art.  V. 
Par.  :i,  p.  K). 

§     Casaubon  Exorcit.  xv.  ad  Anna!,  iiuron. 


284  ST  AUGUSTIN. 

lence  can  be  found  upbraiding  the  heretics  with  their  departure 
from  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  catalogue  was  not  composed 
for  them,  and  departure  from  the  Church  was  common  to  them 
all,  whilst  St  Augustin  undertook  to  specify  the  peculiar  er- 
rors of  each  sect.  Nevertheless,  he  marked  down  the  eflort  of 
the  Donatists  to  maintain  the  semblance  of  the  authority  of 
Peter  in  their  sect,  by  sending  a  bishop  to  reside  at  Rome,  or 
sending  some  bishops  of  the  sect  to  consecrate  one  there.  If 
he  did  not  upbraid  them  with  departing,  he  at  least  affection- 
ately invited  the  heretics  of  his  day  to  return  :  "  Come,  breth- 
ren, if  you  wish  to  be  ingrafted  on  the  vine.  It  is  a  cause  of 
affliction  to  us  to  behold  you  lying  cut  off  from  it,  as  you  are. 
Count  over  the  Bishops  from  the  very  See  of  Peter,  and  see 
how  one  succeeded  the  other  in  that  list  of  Fathers.  This  is 
the  rock  against  which  the  proud  gates  of  hell  do  not  prevail."* 
The  profound  veneration  of  Augustin,  and  of  all  the  Catho- 
lic bishops  of  Africa,  for  the  Roman  See,  was  manifested  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  in  the  measures  adopted  against  the  he- 
resy of  Pelagius  and  Caelestius.  A  numerous  council,  held  at 
Carthage  in  the  year  410,  addressed  Pope  Innocent  as  their 
"  most  blessed  and  honoured  lord,  and  holy  brother,"  and 
prayed,  "  that  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  might  confirm 
their  decrees,  in  order  to  provide  for  the  salvation  of  many,  and 
correct  the  perversity  of  some."  They  concluded  by  express- 
ing their  undoubted  confidence  that  his  judgment  would  be  such 
as  would  fill  them  all  with  joy.f  In  a  letter  from  a  similar 
venerable  assembly,  held  shortly  after  at  Milevis  (Mela),  the 
bishops  begin  by  observing,  that  '«  Since  the  Lord,  by  a  spe- 
cial gift  of  his  grace,  has  placed  you  in  the  Apostolic  See,  we 
beseech  you  to  vouchsafe  to  use  your  pastoral  diligence  in  behalf 
of  the  great  dangers  of  the  weak  members  of  Christ."  Among 
the  texts  by  which  they  establish  the  necessity  of  grace,  they 
allege  the  assurance  of  our  Lord  to  Peter  :  "  I  have  prayed  for 
thee,  that  thy  faith  may  not  fail ;"  and  they  conclude  thus  : — 

*     Ps.  contra  partem  Donati. 

t     Ep.  175,  olim.  90.    Tom.  II.  p.  G17. 


AFRICAN  COUNflLS.  285 

'•  We  think  that,  through  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  our  God,  wlio 
vourhsafes  both  to  direct  your  counsels  and  to  hear  your  pray- 
ers, those  who  entertain  such  perverse  and  pernicious  opinions, 
will  readily  assent  to  the  authority  of  your  Holiness,  derived 
from  the  authority  of  the  Divine  Scriptures,  so  that  we  may 
have  occasion  rather  of  gralulalioii  at  their  correction,  than  of 
sorrow  at  their  ruin."*  The  Poutiff  recoornised  in  the  refer- 
ence made  to  his  authority,  noihing  more  than  faithful  ad- 
herence to  the  exauipk's  of  anticjuity,  and  due  respect  for 
the  rights  of  the  chair  of  Peter.  His  authoritative  decree,  di- 
rected to  the  prelates  of  Carthage,  begins  thus  : — "  In  investi- 
gating those  things,  which  it  is  meet  should  be  treated  of  with 
all  care  by  priests,  and  especially  by  a  true,  and  just,  and  Ca- 
tholic council,  following  the  examples  of  ancient  tradition,  and 
mindful  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  you  have  properly  main- 
tained the  vigour  of  our  religion,  not  less  now  in  consulting  us, 
than  before,  when  you  pronounced  judgment;  since  you  deter- 
mined that  your  juilgmcnt  should  be  referred  to  us,  as  you  know 
what  is  due  to  the  Apostolic  See,  since  all  of  us  placed  in  this 
station  desire  to  follow  the  Apostle  himself,  from  whom  the 
episcopacy  and  the  whole  authority  of  this  order  proceeded: 
following  whom,  we  know  how  to  condemn  what  is  evil,  and 
to  approve  what  is  praiseworthy.  Observing  the  institutions  of 
the  Fathers  with  priestly  fidelity,  you  do  not  allow  them  to  be 
trodden  under  foot ;  for  they  decreed,  not  by  human  impulse, 
but  by  divine  direction,  that  whatsoever  might  be  done  in  pro- 
vinces, liowcver  separate  and  remote,  should  not  be  deemed 
terminated  until  it  had  come  to  the  kiiowledgc  of  this  See  ;  that 
the  judgment,  which  might  be  found  just,  might  be  confirmed 
with  its  whoh;  authority,  and  the  other  churches  (as  waters 
issuing  from  the  fountain,  and  through  the  dilTerent  parts  of  the 
whole  world  (lowing,  pur«;  streams  from  an  un|)()lluted  source), 
miglil  thence  take  what  they  mi^ht  j)r('s«M-ibe."t  His  letter  to  the 
prelates  of  Mela  is  also  coucIhhI  in  the  language  of  one  having 

*     Kl..  17»;,  olim.  92,  p.  G20.  t     Kp.  1-1. 


280  ST  AUGUSTIN. 

authority.*  Neither  document  was  viewed  by  Augustin  or  his 
colleagues  as  marked  with  the  character  of  arrogant  assump- 
tion ;  but  they  considered  "the  pestilence  condemned  by  the 
most  manifest  judgment  of  the  Apostolic  See:"t  and  they 
maintained  that  further  examination  was  unnecessary:  "Why," 
cried  Augustin  to  the  Pelagians,  "  do  you  still  demand  an  inves- 
tigation, which  has  already  taken  place  at  the  Apostolic  See  ?"j 
A  few  months  after  the  confirmation  of  the  African  councils  had 
reached  Africa,  addressing  his  flock,  he  observed:  "Already 
have  the  decrees  of  two  councils  on  this  matter  been  sent  to  the 
Apostolic  See :  the  rescripts  from  thence  have  reached  us :  the 
cause  is  decided  :  would  to  heaven  the  error  were  for  ever  aban- 
doned."§  Allow  me,  then,  Right  Reverend  Sir,  to  conclude 
this  letter  in  the  very  words  of  this  illustrious  doctor :  "  Shall 
we  hesitate  to  take  refuge  in  tlie  bosom  of  that  Church,  which, 
from  the  Apostolic  See,  through  the  succession  of  bishops, 
even  to  the  acknowledgment  of  mankind  generally,  has  obtain- 
ed supreme  authority,  heretics  raging  around  in  vain,  condemn- 
ed as  they  have  been,  partly  by  the  judgment  of  the  people 
themselves,  partly  by  the  authority  of  councils,  partly  also  by 
the  splendour  of  miracles?  To  reject  its  authority,  is  truly 
either  the  height  of  impiety  or  desperate  presumption. "|| 

*  Ep.  182,  olim.  91.  93.    Tom.  II.  p.  635,  inter  Aug. 

t  Ep.  191,  olim.  104,  p.  709.  Tom.  II. 

t  Operis  imperf.  contra  Julianum,  1.  ii.  c.  103,  p.  993.  Tom.  X. 

§  Serm.  131,  de  verbis  Apost.  c   10,  Col.  645.  Tom.  V. 

II  De  utilitate  credendi,  c.  7,  Col.  69.  Tona.  VXH, 


LETTER  XXII. 


ST   CIIRYSOSTOM. 


Right  Revkrend  Sir: 

The  last  witness  of  the  faith  of  the  fourth  century  whom 
you  introduce  to  our  notice  is  the  eloquent  bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople. In  his  work  *'  On  the  Priesthood," — by  which  he 
understood  the  Episcopal  ollice — he  speaks  very  clearly,  and 
quite  to  our  satisfaction.  He  observes  that  Christ,  "  speaking 
with  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  says:  *  Peter,  lovest  thou 
me?'  and  Peter  answering  allirniatively,  he  adds:  'If  thou 
lovest  me,  feed  my  sheep.'  'J'he  Master  interrogates  the  dis- 
ciple, whether  he  is  loved  by  him:  not  that  he  may  be  inform- 
ed— for  how  should  he  seek  information,  to  whom  the  hearts 
of  all  men  were  open  ? — but  to  teach  us  how  much  he  regards 
the  government  of  his  flock.  Mow  great  reward  will  he  not 
bestow  hereafter  on  the  pastors  and  rulers  of  this  flock  ?  Where- 
fore, when  the  discijjle  had  answered  :  '  Thou  knowest,  Lord, 
that  I  love  thee  ;'  and  had  appealed  to  himself,  who  was  loved, 
as  the  witness  of  this  afleclion,  the  Saviour  Jesus  did  not  cease, 
but  added  also  the  judgment  of  love.*  For  he  did  not  then  wish 
a  declaration  of  the  great  love  which  Peter  bore  him,  for  that 
was  already  manifest  to  us  by  many  proofs  :  but  he  had  it  in 
view  to  teach  both  Peter  and  the  rest  of  us  his  own  «^reat  bene- 
volence and  love  for  his  Church:  that  by  this  means  we  also 
might   cheerfully   assunje    the   care    and   charge   of  the    same 

•  S,  Joan.  Chrys.  1.  ii.  dv  Saconlotio.  In  tlir  Latin  translation  it  is 
rcndf^rcd,  "  Anioris  (jiioqui' jucliciiiin  adjnnxit."  It  kccmis  t<i  inran  the 
reward  adjud^rcd  to  tlic  love  of  I'etcr.  Bishop  Hopkins  iiiistukcs  it  for 
indicium. 


288  ST  CHRYSOSTOM. 

Church.  For  why  did  he  shed  his  blood  ?  Certainly  that  he 
might  purchase  to  himself  the  sheep,  tlie  care  of  wliich  he  en- 
trusted to  Peter,  and  to  the  successors  of  Peter.  Justly  then 
Christ  thus  spoke  :  '  Who  then  is  the  faithful  and  prudent  ser- 
vant whom  the  Lord  placed  over  his  family  V  "  You  perceive 
that  Peter  is  here  styled  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  receives 
immediately  from  Christ  the  charge  of  his  (lock:  but  you  ima- 
gine that  the  force  of  the  expressions  is  weakened  by  the  rea- 
soning of  Chrysostom,  who  infers,  from  tlie  charge  of  Christ 
to  Peter,  that  our  love  should  be  manifested  in  feeding  his  flock. 
This  inference  does  not  at  all  imply  the  extension  of  the  words 
of  Christ  to  others  besides  Peter  and  his  successors  in  his  See  ;* 
but  inasmuch  as  the  love  of  Peter  was  rewarded  by  his  being 
entrusted  with  the  charge  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  so  those  who 
are  pastors  and  rulers  of  his  flock  may  expect  that  a  great  re- 
ward is  reserved  for  them  hereafter.  It  is  of  this  reward,  ra- 
ther than  of  the  proof  of  love,  that  he  speaks.  Peter  alone, 
according  to  Chrysostom,  was  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  '*  en- 
dowed by  Christ  with  special  authority,"  and  "  far  surpassing 
the  other  Apostles.  For  he  says  :  '  Peter,  dost  thou  love  me 
more  than  all  these  V  "t  Yet  you  assert  that  there  is  nothing 
in  this  which  necessarily  implies  authority  over  the  other 
Apostles  ! 

The  beautiful  passage  of  the  third  book,  wherein  Chrysos- 
tom speaks  of  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  granted  to  the 
priesthood,  as  a  divine  power  not  communicated  to  angels  and 
archangels,  cannot  be  oflfered  as  an  explanation  of  any  of  the 
texts  on  which  we  lay  peculiar  stress  as  proving  the  Primacy 
of  Peter.  No  mention  whatever  is  made  in  it  of  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  only  of  binding  and  loosing,  and 
of  forgiving  and  retaining  sins,  which  powers  were  promised 
and  communicated  to  the  Apostles  in  common,  on  occasions  al- 
together distinct  from  those  in  which  Christ  said  to  Peter: 
♦*  To  thee  I  will  give  tlie  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  feed 

*  To/f  /uer'  iKitvov.  This  properly  means  "  successors,"  occupants  of 
his  See.  t    Ibidem. 


CIllUCH   miLT  ON   PKIFR.  289 

my  lambs;  feed  my  sheep." — '♦Why,"  asks  (^hrysoslom, 
commeiiliiig  on  this  latter  passage,  **  does  he  address  Peter  con- 
cerning llie  sheep,  passing  by  t!)e  others  ?  He  was  the  chief 
of  the  Apostles,  and  mouth  of  the  disciples,  and  summit  of  that 
body:  wherefore  Paul  also  went  up  to  see  liim  in  preference 
to  the  others."* 

Hid  you  cited  a  little  more  of  the  passage  from  Chrysos- 
tom's  eiglily-lhird  homily  on  St  Matthew,  1  should  not  feel  it 
necessary  to  do  more  than  copy  the  quotation.  In  that  dis- 
course he  observes,  that  Christ  '*  permill<'d  the  very  summit 
{head)  of  the  Apostles  lo  deny  him."t — It  is  in  rehiiioii  to  the 
prayer  of  Christ,  that  the  failh  of  Peter  miglit  not  fail,  that 
Chrysostom  observes:  "As  he  is  going  to  suffer,  he  speaks 
more  humbly,  that  he  may  show  his  human  nature:  for  He, 
who,  on  his  confession,  so  founded  ami  fortified  the  Church, 
that  no  danger,  nor  death  itself  coidd  overcome  it;  who  grant- 
ed him  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  committed  to 
him  so  great  power,  and  who  never  needed  to  pray  for  them 
all, — how  much  less  should  he  need  it  in  this  circumstance  ?  For 
with  supreme  authority  he  said:  *I  will  build  on  t/iee  my 
Church,  and  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven."!—  W  iil>  tliis  exposition  of  the  text  before  you,  you  could 
easily  have  perceived  what  he  meant  when  he  s;»i<I,  that  on  the 
confession  of  Peter  the  Church  was  founded  and  fortihed, — 
namely,  on  Peter  himself  confessing  Jesus  Christ. 

Such,  also,  is  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  passage  wliich  you 
object  from  the  (ifty-fifth  homily.  In  rch'rcnce  lo  the  question 
of  the  Saviour,  ns  to  whom  the  Aposiirs  believed  him  to  be, 
Chrysost(»m  says: — "  What  tlxMi  does  Pefr,  the  mouth  of  all 
the  Apostles,  the  summit  of  the  whole  college?    When  all  had 

been  questioned,  he  alone  answers W  hat  then  does  Christ 

say?  *'riiou  art  Simon,  the  son  of  Jona,  thou  shah  be  called 
Cephas:  for  siiu-c  thou  hast   proclaimed    my    Father,  I  also 

X^f-     ^    Jonn    (^lirya    in  c.  xxi.  Juan   lioin    b7.  Tom.  III. 

t     S.  Jii.ifK  ('liry»    liom.  hxxiii.  in  .Malt.  J     Ibidem. 

z 


290  ST  CHRYSOSTOM. 

mention  him  u-ho  begot  thee.'  ....  But  since  he  [Peter) 
added:  'thou  art  the  Son  of  God;'  [Clirisl)  to  show  that 
lie  was  '  the  Son  of  God,'  as  he  [Peter)  was  son  of  Jona, 
of  the  same  substance  with  liis  father,  therefore,  added : 
'  and  I  say  to  thee  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  Church,'  tiiat  is,  upon  the  faith  of  the  con- 
fession.* Here  he  manifestly  foretold  that  the  multitude  of 
believers  would  be  great,  and  he  elevates  the  thoughts  of  Peter, 
and  makes  him  the  pastor  of  the  Church. — 'And  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.'  If  they  shall  not  prevail 
against  the  Church,— much  less  shall  they  prevail  against  me. 
. .  .  . '  And  to  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven.' What  means — '  I  will  give  to  thee?'  As  the  Father 
has  given  to  thee  the  knowledge  of  me,  so  I  will  give  to  thee. 
And  he  did  not  say :  1  will  ask  the  Father  to  give  thee  :  but, 
though  the  power  was  great,  and  the  greatness  of  the  gift  in- 
effable, nevertheless,  he  says :  '  I  will  give  thee.'  What  I 
pray,  dost  thou  give  ?  '  The  keys,'  he  says,  '  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  And  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth,  shall 
be  bound  also  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon 
earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.'  How  then  is  it  not  be- 
longing to  him  who  says — '  I  will  give  to  thee,' — to  grant  also 
to  sit  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left?  You  perceive  how 
he  leads  Peter  to  a  more  exalted  idea  of  himself,  and  reveals, 
and  shows  himself  to  be  tlie  Son  of  God  by  these  two  pro- 
mises. For  what  God  alone  can  grant,  namely,  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  that  the  Church,  so  many  and  so  great  waves 
violently  rushing  on  it,  should  remain  immovable ;  whose 
head  and  shepherd,  a  loichj  fisherman,  should  surpass  ada- 
mant in  strength,  the  whole  world  struggling  against  him — all 
these  things,  1  say,  which  God  oidy  can  effect,  he  promises 
that  he  will  give.  Thus,  the  Father  also  said  to  Jeremiah  : 
*I  have  made  thee  a  pillar  of  iron,  and  a  wall  of  brass.'  But 
the    Father   set   him  over  one   naiion  :    CHRIST  PLACED 

*  T«  Trtnt  T)if  o/uohoyloL^.  Bishop  Hopkins  criticises  the  version 
fidem  et  confcssioncm.  At  the  sacrifice  of  perspicuity,  I  have  given  a 
literal  version. 


I'KTKU   TLACKI)  OVF.ll  Till:    WORM).  *J()1 

THIS  MA.N  OVER  1111:  lON'rilU::  WORLD. »  Wliere- 
fore,  I  would  willingly  ask  those;  who  say  lh:it  the  di<rniiy  of 
the  Sou  is  less  than  that  of  the  Father,  whicli  <(ifis  appear  to 
them  greater,  those  which  the  Father,  or  those  wliicli  tlie  Son 
granted  to  Peter?  The  Father  iiiade  to  him  the  revelatjon  of 
his  Son  ;  hut  the  Sou  j^^rauted  to  liiin  partly  to  he  ahle  to  diffuse 
every  where  throuirhout  the  world  the  revelation  holh  of  the 
Father  and  of  liu;  Son  ;  partly  that  though  he  was  a  mortal 
man,  he  should,  ncveriheless,  have  celestial  power,  and  have 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  iieaven  ;  so  Peter  showed  that  the 
(Jhiirch,  spread  through  the  entire  world,  is  stronger  than  the 
firmament:  '  for  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,'  he  sailh, 
'  but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away.'  How  is  He  inferior, 
who  granted  these  things — who  accomplished  these  things  for 
Peter?  I  do  not  speak  thus,  as  thinking  that  the  works  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  are  distinct:  '  for  all  things  were  made 
by  him,  and  without  him  was  made  nothing:'  but  I  speak 
with  a  view  to  silence  those  who  utter  such  things.  But,  do 
you  understand  with  me  from  all  these  things,  how  great  is  his 
power.  *I  say  to  thee,  he  says,  thou  art  Peter,  and  I  upon 
THEE  will  build  my  Church  ;  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  "t  You  were  wisely  brief  in  your 
quotations  from  this  eloquent  Father.  It  is  easy  to  cavil 
on  a  word,  and  to  mislead  a  reader  by  referrin<i  to  an  ambigu- 
ous phrase;  but  to  persuade  an  unbiassed  mind  that  Clirysos- 
tom, — who  styled  Peter, — '*  the  summit  of  the  whole  Apostolic 
band," — who  magnified  the  power  given  him  by  Christ,  as 
great,  the  gift  as  ineffable, — who  adduced  it  as  an  evidence  of 
Christ's  divinity,  that  *'  a  lowlij  Jiahrrmiin  should  be  made  the 
shepherd  of  the  flock," — "  the  head  of  llie  mystic,  body," — and 
should  surpass  in  strength  adamant  itself,  so  that  the  whole 
worhl  should  struggle  in  vain  against  him,  placed,  as  he  was  by 
Christ,  over  the  entire  world, — (Midowed  with  celestial  power, 
— to  persuade  us,  that  (Mirysostom  proclaiming  all  these  privi- 


i     S.  Chry«.  horn.  55. 


292  ST  CHRYSOSTOM. 

leges  of  Peter,  did  not  admit  the  primacy,  was  not  an  easy  task, 
and  which  you,  therefore,  prudently  declined. 

The  use  of  the  term  "  principality"  in  regard  to  the  Apos- 
tleship  of  Paul,  and  even  with  reference  to  the  Episcopal  dig- 
nity, in  the  third  book  of  the  work  of  St  Chrysostom  on  the 
Priestliood,  seems  to  you  sufficient  to  explain  away  all  these 
splendid  testimonies.  But  where  is  it  said  that  Paul  had  the 
principality  of  the  Apostleship  itself, — that  he  was  the  summit 
of  the  Apostles, — that  he  was  set  over  the  whole  world  ?  No 
one,  you  say,  as  if  on  the  authority  of  Chrysostom,  "  was  a 
greater  favourite  with  the  Lord  than  Paul ;"  that  is,  according 
to  the  force  of  the  original  terms,  none  was  more  acceptable ; 
his  virtues  were  eminent,  his  labours  immense,  his  sufferings 
extreme,  his  privileges  great — but  he  had  not  heard  from  the 
lips  of  Jesus  the  divine  words  :  *'  Thou  art  a  rock,  and  on  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  Church, — to  thee  I  will  give  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

As  you  have  given  but  few  quotations  from  this  great  lumi- 
nary of  the  East,  I  may  be  allowed  to  submit  some  more  spe- 
cimens besides  those  already  adduced.  In  his  panegyric  on 
the  martyr  Ignatius,  who  was  bishop  of  Antioch,  where  Peter 
had  for  a  time  resided,  he  dwells  on  the  great  honour  thus  be- 
stowed by  God  on  that  city :  "  for  he  set  over  it  Peter  the 
doctor  of  the  wliole  world,  to  whom  he  gave  the  keys  of  hea- 
ven, to  whose  will  and  power  he  entrusted  all  things."*  Pane- 
gyrizing both  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  he  thus  carefully 
distinguishes  the  high  prerogatives  of  Peter : — "  Peter  the 
leader  of  the  Apostles,  Peter  the  commencement  of  the  ortho- 
dox faith, — the  great  and  illustrious  priest  of  the  Church, — 
the  necessary  counsellor  of  Christians,  the  depositary  of  super- 
nal powers, — the  Apostle  honoured  by  the  Lord.  What 
shall  we  say  of  Peter?  the  delightful  spectacle  of  the  Church, 
— the  splendour  of  the  entire  world,  the  most  chaste  dove,  the 
teacher  of  the  Apostles,  the  ardent  Apostle,  fervent  in  spirit, 
angel  and  man,  full  of  grace,  the  firm  rock  of  faith,  the  mature 

*     In  S.  M.  Ignatium,  p.  687,  Tom.  V. 


PKTKR  TIIK   ROCK  <»F   FAITH.  298 

wisdom  of  ihe  CImrcli,  who,  on  nccoiint  of  liis  purily,  lieard, 
from  llie  mouth  of  the  Lord,  hiniscU  .styled  1  Icssrd,  and  son  of 
the  dove:  who  received  Irom  the  Lord  liimself  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. — Ihjoice,  OPtter^rockoffaitJi!.^'*  This 
is,  indeed,  the  language  of  panegyric  ;  but  it  would  have  been 
utterly  unwarrnntalde,  if  Peter  were  not  in  fact  the  necessary 
counsellor  of  Chrisiiians,  the  teacher  of  the  Apostles,  the  rock 
of  faiil).  It  is  not  only  when  expressly  engaged  in  panegyric 
that  Chrysostom  thus  speaks  of  Peter.  They  are  his  favourite 
expressions,  and  every  where  occur  in  his  writings  :  "  Peter," 
say  he,  '*  is  the  basis  of  the  Church, — the  fisherman  who  cast 
his  net  into  the  sea,  and  caught  in  it  the  whole  world. t — He  left 
his  ship,  and  undertook  the  government  of  the  Church;  he 
was  called  the  key-hearer  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.; — lie  was 
the  Coi'ijphrtKS  who  occupied  the  iirst  place,  and  to  whom  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heavc5i  were  entrusted.  §" — He  was  "  the 
pillar  of  the  Church,  the  i^asis  of  faith,  the  head  of  the  Aj)ostolic 
choir."'^ — "'J'o  him  the  Lord  gave  the  presidency  of  the  Church 
throughout  the  whole  earth. "^  To  these  splendid  testimonies 
I  shall  only  add  the  still  more  solemn  evidence  of  Aicts.  As 
Athanasius,  the  great  champion  of  the  Nicene  faith,  was  driven 
from  his  See,  Chrysostom  also  was  unjustly  condemned  and 
violently  driven  from  the  See  of  Constantinople,  by  Tlieophilus, 
j)atriar(di  of  Alexandria.  h\  his  distress  he  appealed  to  Inno- 
cent, Bishop  of  Rome,  and  invoked  the  exercise  of  his  supreme 
aulliorily.  **  I  beseech  you,"  says  he,  *'  to  direct,  that  what 
has  been  done  wickedly  against  me,  in  my  absence,  and  whilst 
I  did  not  shrink  from  a  trir\l,  shall  be  void,  and  they  who  have 
thus  acted  be  subjected  to  ecclesiastical  punishment."**      The 

•  In.  SS.  Pctruin  ct  Pauluin.  Tom.  V.  p.  (JlKt. 

t  Oc  Verbis  Isaia;  liom.  1,  p.  G()l>.   Tom.  I. 

X  In  duodocirn  A  post.    Tom.  V.  p.  (»IU. 

§  In  Ep.  ad  Corinlli   i.  c.  ix.  horn.  21. 

II  Horn.  2.  de  ptcn.  in  Psahn  I... 

!i  Ad  pop.  Antioch.  horn.  J^d.  de  ptcnitenlia. 

•'  Chryn.  Tom.  V.  p.  390. 


294  ST  CHRYSOSTOM. 

Pontiff  heard  his  prayer.  "Innocent,"  says  Palladius,  "de- 
creed that  the  sentence  of  Theophilus  should  be  null  and 
void."*  Why,  may  I  ask  you,  did  you  not  advert  to  this  fact, 
and  explain  by  what  authority  Innocent  reversed  the  decree  of 
the  Alexandrine  patriarch,  and  restored  to  his  See  the  bishop 
of  the  imperial  city  ?  Could  a  more  signal  evidence  be  given 
of  his  spiritual  supremacy  ? 

*     Palladius  in  vita  Chrys. 


LETTER   XXIIl. 


ISIDORE,  rUOSPER  AND  VINCENT. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

In  your  ihirlieth  cliapler  you  present  us  wiih  the  leslimony 
of  tliree  Falliers,  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  in  E^ypl,  a  disciple  of 
St  Clirysosloni,  Prosper  of  Aquilaine  in  Gaul,  and  Vincent,  a 
monk  of  Lerins,  an  island  on  the  coast  of  Gaul,  who  all  lived 
before  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  Isidore  observes,  that 
Christ  interrogated  the  Apostles,  not  through  ignorance  of  the 
opinions  of  men  in  his  regard,  "  but  with  a  view  to  deliver  to 
all  a  certain  confession,  which  Peter,  inspired  by  him,  laid 
down  as  a  basis  and  foundation,  on  which  the  Lord  built  his 
Church."*  Tiiis  interpretation  is  by  no  means,  as  you  con- 
ceive, "  in  direct  hostility  to  our  present  argument,"  for  when 
Peter  is  said  to  be  the  foundation  on  which  the  Church  is  built, 
he  is  not  regarded  merely  as  en  individual  man,  but  as  an  Apos- 
tle confessing  the  faith :  hence,  the  confession  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ  made  by  Peter,  is  easily  identified  with  Peter  mak- 
ing that  confession.  On  him  the  Lord  built  his  Church,  not 
as  on  an  individual  man;  but  as  a  man  divinely  enlightened, 
and  chosen  to  be  the  chief  instrument  in  the  divine  work.  The 
other  passage  presents  no  semblance  of  dilliculty,  for  our  Lord, 
as  a  good  physician,  according  to  the  observation  of  Isidore, 
expelled  the  triple  denial  of  which  Peter  iiad  been  guilty,  by 

*  S.  Isidor.  Pi'lus.  do  intrrp.  div.  Script.  Kpist.  1.  1,  Ep.  23o.  "  Vl 
hac  rationo  certain  omnibus  confessioiicm  Iradcrct,  quain  ab  on  inspiratus 
I'etnis,  tnniquaiii  ba.siin  ac  fuiidauKiitum  jfcil.  super  quod  Doininus  Ec- 
clesiaiii  Huain  cxtruxit." 


296  ST  PROSPER  OF  AQUITAINE. 

requiring  of  him  a  triple  declaration  of  love,  whilst  he  thus  pre- 
pared him  for  the  power  which  he  was  about  to  confer  of  feed- 
ing his  lambs  and  sheep.  Nothing,  in  the  least  degree  adverse 
to  the  prerogatives  of  Peter,  can  be  gathered  from  the  works 
of  Isidore,  which,  on  the  contrary,  bear  splendid  testimony  to 
the  enduring  character  of  the  Church  founded  on  the  rock. 
*'  By  the  gates  of  hell,"  says  he,  "  the  divine  word  designates 
the  assemblies  of  impious  men,  and  the  blasphemies  of  here- 
sies: all  of  which  the  Church  of  God  resists,  and  breaks  down, 
and  overthrows,  whilst  she  cannot  be  overcome  by  them."* 

The  first  of  the  two  passages  you  take  from  St  Prosper,  is 
found  in  his  exposition  of  the  one  hundred  and  first  Psalm: — 
"  The  sons  of  the  servants  of  God,"  saith  he,  "  are  the  sons 
of  the  just, — the  sons  of  the  patriarchs,  prophets.  Apostles  and 
martyrs ;  the  sons,  in  fine,  of  the  whole  Church,  which  is  the 
body  of  Christ,  the  mother  of  all  tlie  Fathers,  and  of  all  the 
sons."t  The  citation  of  a  passage  like  this  is  certainly  not 
calculated  to  throw  any  light  on  the  question  under  considera- 
tion, as  it  neither  asserts  nor  denies  the  Primacy,  and  has  not 
even  an  indirect  bearing  on  it.  The  commencement  of  the 
other  passage  speaks  of  the  Church  as  one  man,  Christ  being 
the  head:  "  The  whole  Church,  with  her  head,  which  is  Christ, 
is  one  man,  whose  proper  ofiice  is  through  all  time  to  bless 
God."!  In  this,  as  well  as  in  the  former  passage,  the  saint  is 
explaining  some  verses  of  the  Psalms  in  a  mystical  way.  Christ 
is  the  supreme  head  of  the  Church,  and  Peter,  or  his  successor, 
though  styled  the  head  of  the  visible  Church,  in  relation  to  the 
other  members,  is  only  the  chief  member  under  Christ.  No 
mention  of  this  visible  head  is  here  made,  because  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  Psalm  oflfered  no  occasion  for  it ;  but  in  many  places 
of  his  works  Prosper  speaks  of  tlie  authority  of  the  Roman 
See  as  being  the  throne  of  Peter.  In  liis  letter  to  Rufinus,  he 
says,  that  "the  judgments  of   the   eastern  bishops,   and  the 

*     Isidor.  Pelus.  238.  Sereno. 

t    Prosper  Aquit.  in  Ps.  ci.  Ed.  Par.  1711. 

t    Prosper  in  Ps.  cii. 


ArnioiUTY  OF  Tin:  apostolic  see.  297 

aulhority  of  the  Apostolic  Sec,  and  the  viL'ihviice  of  the  Airican 
counrils  delected  the  arliliccs  of  ilie  l*el:ii^iniis." ' — Speaking 
elsewhere  of  those  who  asserted  that  AuLMisliiie  had  ik)!  cor- 
rectly defended  the  Catholic  (h)ctrine,  he  dwells  "  on  the  great- 
ness of  the  injury  which,  in  the  person  of  this  one  doctor,  they 
inflict  on  all,  and  especially  on  the  Pontiffs  of  the  Aj)ostolic 
See."t  He  repels  the  assertion  as  ahsnrd  :  "  Accordinj^  to 
your  censure,  the  hlessed  Pope;  Innocent,  most  worthy  of  the 
See  of  Peter,  erred.  'I'he  two  hundreil  anil  hnirtcen  bishops 
erred,  who  in  the  letter  which  they  prelixeil  to  their  decrees, 
thus  addressed  blessetl  /osinnis  the  prelate  of  the  Apostolic 
See:  'We  have  determined  that  the  sentence  passed  against 
Pelagins  and  Celestine  hy  the  venerable  Bishop,  Innocent,  from 
the  See  of  the  most  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  shall  continue  in 
force  until  they  most  unreservedly  confess  that  we  are  aided 
in  each  act  by  the  grace  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  not  only  to  know,  but  to  perform  justice,  so  that  without 
it  we  can  have,  thiid;,  say,  or  do  nothing  of  true  and  holy 
piety.'  The  holy  See  of  Peter  erred,  which  by  the  mouth  of 
blessed  Zosimus  thus  speaks  to  all  the  world:  '  We,  neverthe- 
less, through  the  inspiration  of  Cod — for  all  good  is  to  be  re- 
ferred to  its  author  and  origin — have  reported  all  to  our  brethren 
and  fellow  bishops.'  "^  He  shows  that  these  errors,  having  been 
once  proscribed  by  Apostolic  authority,  should  not  be  again 
discussed  :  *♦  We  are  not  again  to  enter  into  a  new  conllict  with 
them  {the  Pelagians),  nor  are  special  contests  to  be  begun  as 
against  unknown  enemies  :  their  engines  were  broken  in  pieces, 
they  were  prostrated  in  the  companions  and  princes  of  their 
pride,  when  Innocent,  of  blessed  memory,  struck  the  heads  oi 
the  impious  error  with  the  Apostolic  sword  ....  when  Pope 
Zosimus,  of  blessed  memory,  added  the  streng'h  of  his  sentence 
to  the  decrees  of  the  African  council. "§     '•  See,"  he  says  in 

•  Prosper  ad  Iluf.  p.  KVI,  App.  ad  Aug.  Ed.  Vrn.  Tom.  X. 

f  \s.  contra  Collatorcin,  p.  171. 

t  rrosper,  I.  contra,  Cullat.  p.  170. 

§  lb.  p.  VXi, 


298  VINCENT  OF  LERINS. 

another  place,  "  die  rebels  everywiiere  laid  prostrate  by  the  thun- 
derbolt of  the  Apostolic  decision."*  He  calls  Rome  "the 
throne  of  Peter,"t  "  the  throne  of  Apostolic  power,"±  the  "  head 
of  the  world, §  governing  witli  religious  empire  nations  which 
its  arms  had  not  subdued."  Willi  these  words  of  Prosper  be- 
fore you,  how  could  you  thus  write:  "On  the  subject  of  Pe- 
ter's autliority  over  the  other  Apostles,  or  the  derived  supre- 
macy of  the  Church  of  Rome,  I  find  nothing  in  the  works  of 
Prosper?"  Need  i  express  my  astonisliment  at  this  declaration? 
In  referring  to  the  "  Commonitorium"  of  Vincent  of  Le- 
rins,  you  have  studiously  avoided  citing  those  passages  which 
bear  directly  on  the  subject,  and  confined  yourself  to  a  general 
principle,  which  is  perfectly  correct,  but  in  the  application  of 
which  you  are  peculiarly  unfortunate.  You  should  have  turned 
to  the  eighth  chapter,  wherein  you  might  have  seen  him  illus- 
trating his  principle  "  by  an  instance  taken  from  the  Apostolic 
See,  that  all  might  see  in  meridian  light — with  what  energy,  with 
what  zeal,  with  what  determination  the  blessed  successors  of  the 
blessed  Apostles  always  maintained  the  integrity  of  the  religion 
once  received.  Pope  Stephen,  of  blessed  memory,  the  Bishop 
of  the  Apostolic  See,  in  conjunction,  indeed,  with  his  colleagues, 
yet  in  a  more  conspicuous  manner  than  they,  resisted  innova- 
tion, judging  it  fit,  as  I  think,  that  he  should  excel  all  the 

REST  IN  the  DEVOTEDNESS  OF  HIS  FAITH,  AS  MUCH  AS  HE  SUR- 
PASSED THEM  IN  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  HIS  STATION. "||  In  the  pe- 
nultimate chapter,  speaking  of  the  letters  of  Julius,  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  which  were  read  in  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus, 
he  observes :  "  That  not  only  the  head  of  the  world,  but 

* stratosqiie  rebelles 


Oris  Apostolici  fulmine  ubiquo  vide. — Prosp.  in  Ohtrect.  Aucr. 
t     Ergo  Petri  solium  Romam,  et  Carthaginis  altae 

Concilium  repetant. —  Carm.  dc  ingratis. 
X     Juris  Apostolici  solio. — lb. 
§     Sedes  Roma  Petri,  quae  pastoralis  honoris, 

Facta  caput  mundi,  quidquid  non  possidet  armis, 

Religione  tenet. — lb. 
II     S.  Vine.  Comm.  c.  viii.  p.  ^G.  Ed.  Aug.  Vindelic. 


lU'LK  OF  IN  ri:i{i'Ki;TATi<)\.  299 

also  its  sides  iiii;;ht  give  tfsiimony  for  llial  judLMiient,  llie  most 
blessed  Cyprian,  bishop  ofCarliiage,  and  niarlyr,  was  bronght 
forward  from  the  soiiili,  Si  Ambrose,  l)isli()p  of  Milan,  from 
the  north. "'  In  ihe  lasl  chapter  he  adduces  ♦♦  two  auiliorita- 
live  declarations  of  the  Apostolic  See,  one,  namely,  of  the  holy 
Pope  Sixtiis,  which  venerable  man  (he  says)  now  adorns  the 
Roman  Church,  the  other  of  his  predecessor  of  blessed  me- 
mory, Pope  Celesiine. — Whoever  opposes  these  Apostolic 
and  Catholic  decrees,  must  first  insult  the  memory  of  St  Celes- 
tine,  who  decreed  that  novelty  should  cease  to  assail  antiquity, 
and  must  mock  the  decrees  of  St  Sixtus,  who  judged  that  no- 
velty should  have  no  indulgence,  because  nothing  should  be 
added  to  antiquity. "t 

The  maxims  which  you  have  cited  from  this  admirable  work 
are  ours,  and  we  alone  can  stand  the  test  of  their  application. 
•'  If  I,"  says  he,  *'  or  any  other,  desire  to  detect  the  frauds  of 
heretics,  who  are  rising  up  around  us,  and  to  avoid  their 
snares,  and  to  continue  sound  and  whole  in  sound  faith,  he 
ought  to  fortify  his  faith,  by  the  help  of  God,  in  a  twofold 
manner  ;  first,  by  the  aulliorily  of  the  divine  law,  and  next  by 
the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church.  But  here,  perhaps,  some 
one  may  say:  Since  the  canon  of  the  Scriptures  is  perfect,  and 
abundantly  suni(!es  to  itself  for  all  j)urposes,  what  need  is  there 
that  the  authority  of  the  ecclesiaslical  inlerpretaiion  should  be 
added  .'  Because,  iMdced,  all  men  do  not  understand  in  one  and 
the  same  sense  the  S('rij)lure,  in  consecjuence  of  its  sublimity  ; 
but  each  one  interprets  its  words  diH'erenily,  so  that  as  many 
opinions  as  there  are  men  seem  to  be  d(;riv('d  from  it.  Thus 
Novaiian  expounded  the  Scriptures  in  one  way,  Sabellius  in 
another,  Donaius  in  another;  Arius,  Eunomius,  Macedonius, 
each  in  his  own  way;  Photiinis,  Apollinaris,  J^riscillian,  Jo- 
vinian,  Pelagius,  Celestius,  each  dillerently;  and  last  of  all, 
Neslorius.  And,  therefore,  it  is  very  necessary,  on  account  of 
the   many  and  varn»us   turnings  of  error,  that  llie  line   of  pro- 

"     Comtn.  r.  penult,  p.  Ilo. 
t      lb.  c.  nil.  p.  KM). 


300  VINCENT  OF  LERIN3. 

phetic  and  Apostolic  inlerpretation  should  be  directed  accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  ecclesiastical  and  Catholic  understand- 
ing."* 

Give  me  leave  to  point  out  to  you  the  true  application  of  this 
excellent  rule.  To  avoid  the  prevailing  errors,  we  cling  to  that 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  wliich  has  received  the  solemn 
sanction  of  the  Church.  The  words  of  Christ  to  Peter  appear 
to  us  so  plain,  that  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that  no  mind  not 
already  biassed  can  mistake  their  meaning.  One  unenlightened 
by  faith  may  disbelieve  the  power  of  Peter,  because  he  doubts 
of  the  power  of  Christ  to  accomplish  what  he  says:  but  who- 
ever believes  the  divine  power  of  our  Saviour,  cannot  consist- 
ently call  the  prerogatives  of  Peter  into  question.  They  flow 
irresistibly  from  the  words  of  Christ.  Thus  we  fortify  our  faith 
in  the  first  place  by  the  Divine  law,  as  Vincent  of  Lerins 
states.  Next  by  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church.  If  the 
ingenious  but  tortuous  interpretations  of  those  who  deny  the 
Primacyt  could  shake  these  common  sense  conclusions,  the 

*     Comm.  c.  ii.  p.  16, 

t  The  following  are  some  specimens  from  the  most  distinguished  di- 
vines of  the  English  establishment.  Bishwp  Pearson  says:  "  It  will  be 
necessary  to  take  notice,  that  our  Saviour,  speaking  of  it  {the  Church), 
mentioneth  it  as  that  which  then  was  not,  but  afterwards  was  to  be ;  as 
when  he  spake  unto  the  great  Apostle  :  <  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church;'  but  when  he  ascended  into  heaven, 
and  the  Holy  Giiost  came  down,  when  Peter  had  converted  three  thou- 
sand souls,  which  were  added  to  the  hundred  and  twenty  disciples,  then 
was  there  a  Church,  (and  that  built  upon  Peter,  according  to  our 
Saviour's  promise)  for  after  that  we  read:  'The  Lord  added  to  the 
Church  daily  such  as  should  be  saved.'  " — Bishop  Pearson  on  the  Creed, 
Article  IX.  p  506.  Here  the  Catholic  interpretation  of  the  rock  is  dis- 
tinctly admitted,  but  an  attempt  is  made  to  explain  the  sublime  promise 
of  the  mere  reception  of  the  first  converts.  It  is  easy  by  such  a  mode 
of  interpretation  to  evade  the  plainest  testimonies.  "  Our  Lord,"  says 
Potter,  "  received  from  God  the  keys  of  heaven ;  and  by  virtue  of  this 
grant,  had  power  to  remit  sins  on  earth  :  the  same  keys,  with  the  power 
which  accompanied  them,  were  first  promised  to  Veter,  as  the  foreman  of 
the  Jipostolic  colic (Tc  " — Potter,  Archb.  Canterhurij,on  Church  Government, 
p.  60. — This  qualifying  phrase  has  no  foundation  in  the  sacred  text. 


PAPAL   UFXISIONS.  301 

aulhorily  of  thai  interpreialion  wliii-h  ihe  Cliurcli  always, 
EVERYWHERE,  aiicl  BY  THE  MOiTHs  OF  ALL,  lias  ilelivert'il,  woiild 
remove  every  possibility  of  doubt.  Aflcr  the  review  which  I 
have  made  of  your  quotations,  I  can  confidently  appeal  to  the 
testimonies  of  all  the  Fatiiers  whom  you  have  brought  forward, 
as  well  as  to  others,  whom  you  have  not  noticed,  some  of 
whose  testimonies  will  be  found  in  the  succeeding  letter. 

You  ask,  why  did  not  Vincent  of  Lfriiis  slate,  "  that  the  only 
thing  required  to  avoid  heresy  was  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of 
the  Vicar  of  Christ?"  His  object  was  to  show  tiiat  Catholic 
faith  is  the  simple  erjunciation  of  what  has  been  believed  from 
the  beginning,  and  is  still  believed  throughout  the  world,  since 
the  highest  authority  of  the  Church  is  only  its  guardian  and 
expounder.  He  speaks  distinctly  of  the  zeal  with  which  the 
ancient  faith  had  always  been  maintained  by  the  successors  of 
Peter  in  the  Apostolic  chair:  but  he  enters  into  no  nice  distinc- 
tions of  what  gives  a  doctrinal  delinition  the  character  of  a 
solemn  expression  of  the  faith  of  the  Universal  Church.  How- 
ever, all  the  monuments  of  Christian  antiquity  prove  that  those 
whose  orthodoxy  was  called  in  question,  felt  bound  to  render 
an  account  of  tiieir  faith  to  the  Roman  Bishop — that  he  was 
consulted  from  every  pari  of  liie  workl  on  (questions  or  contro- 
versies concerning  faith — that  his  solemn  juilgments  were  di- 
rected to  the  Universal  Church,  and  that  even  (Ecumenical 
Councils  listened  to  them  wiili  reverence. 


2  a 


LETTER   XXIV. 

GENERAL  TESTIMONIES. 


Right  Reverend  Sir: 

Having  followed  you  through  the  list  of  your  authorities, 
and  produced  ample  proofs  of  the  full  admission  of  the  Primacy 
of  Peter  and  his  successors  by  the  illustrious  men  whose  testi- 
mony you  have  endeavoured  to  bring  forward  against  the  truth 
which  they  professed  in  word  and  work,  I  may  now  add  a  few 
out  of  many  other  witnesses  of  the  ancient  faith  to  whom  you 
have  not  invited  attention. 

St  James  of  Nisibis,  one  of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  says  :  "  Si- 
mon, who  was  called  the  rock,  on  account  of  his  faith,  was 
justly  styled  rock."* 

St  Epiphanius,  bishop  of  Salaraina  in  Cyprus,  in  the  fourth 
century,  calls  Peter  "  the  first  of  the  Apostles,  the  solid  rock 
on  whicli  the  Church  of  God  was  built. "t 

St  Gregory  of  Nyssa  says:  "  The  memory  of  Peter,  who  is 
the  head  of  the  Apostles,  and  together  with  him  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  are  glorified;  but  the  Church  of  God  is 
rendered  solid  in  him :  for  he,  according  to  the  prerogative 
granted  him  by  God,  is  the  firm  and  most  solid  rock  on  which 
the  Saviour  built  his  Churcli.":}: 

St  Asterius,  bishop  of  Amasea  in  Pontus,  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, thus  commented   on  tlie  pastoral  commission   given  to 

*     S.  Jac.  Nis.  Apud.  Galland.  Tom.  V.  p.  3,  n.  13. 
t      "ES'ti  rov  Trpcerov   uTn^CihceV   t»v  Trirpstv  t«v  9'ip'e^v,  ip'  riv  «  ExxAxcr/* 
Tj<  6e»  aKoSo/Ahrui.'" — S.  Epiph.  in  Ancorato. 

X     S.  Greg.  Nyss.  laudatio  altera  S.  Steph.  protom. 


ST  OPT  ATI'S,  ST  CVIill.  OF   ALT-N  ANDKIA.  303 

Peter:  "  When,  tliorefore,  our  Saviour  was  about  to  sanctify 
mankind  by  subjecliuu  himself,  of  liis  own  choice,  lo  tlealli,  he 
dclivcH's  to  this  man  the  Universal  Churcli  every  wlicrc  (liHused, 
as  a  precious  deposit,  after  liavinjr  asked  liim  thrice  :  '  dost 
thou  h)vc  mc  V  and  as  with  great  ahicrity  lie  rej)lied  to  the 
questions  by  an  equal  number  of  protestations,  he  received  the 
world  in  charge,  as  one  s!iej)herd,  one  llock,  having  heard, 
'  feed  my  sheep  :'  and  tlie  liOrt!  i^ave  to  those  who  should  come 
to  the  faith,  tiie  most  laiihful  disciple,  almost  in  his  own  stead 
as  a  falher,  and  lawgiver,  and  instructor."* 

Si  Oplitus,  of  Mela  in  Africa,  addressing  the  Donatists, 
wrote:  **  To  err  knowingly  is  a  sin:  tiic  ignorant  are  some- 
times pardoned.  You  cannot  deny  liiut  you  kr.ow  the  Episco- 
pal chair  in  the  city  of  Uoinc  was  first  bestowed  on  Peter:  that 
Peter,  the  head  of  all  the  Apostles,  sat  therein  ;  in  which  one 
chair  unity  should  be  preserved  by  all — so  that  now,  whoever 
would  place  another  chair  against  this  one,  woulil  be  guilty  of 
schism. "t 

To  these  writers  of  the  i'ourlh  century  1  subjoin  some  of  the 
succeeding  age.  St  Cyril,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  com- 
menting on  the  twelfth  cliapter  of  John,  says  :  **  He  (Christ) 
was  pleased  to  call  him  l*cter,  frtim  the  rock,  by  an  apt  simili- 
tude, as  the  one  on  whom  he  was  about  to  lound  the  Church.":}: 

St  I'cter  Chrysologus,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Ravenna, 
wrote  lo  Eutyches  :  ♦♦  We  exhort  you,  honourable  brother,  lo 
attend  with  docility  in  all  things  lo  what  shall  be  prescribed  to 

"      O  /utr   cut  fmrup  hjuott   Hvix*  •/uixxii'  ayi^^nv  tu  xu&aupirm  dmiaTei 

TOi/T*  Ta»  itifi  7rtptrifitr:n,  rpiror  aWTH  wbifjurct  to,  fixiic  /ui.  flf  Jt 
TAit  i^wTJiViai  fA*^.<t  7rf:.^Cu(k(  Irafiduiuc  Tate  i/xsAcj/ac  ^fiibi-ro,  «Aot/Si» 
T6»  niffjiif  i/c  iT//uiA«4ar  »c  /uixf  xyiKtit  «<c  voifxttf,  axiv<Tu.(.  fiivnt  to. 
utl'n.  /utt.  Ksi  r^tjit  oitbi  isri/Tsu  Tif  ?r/rora'Tcr  yua6*Tjli'  f/*xir  o  nvfiit 
Tcic  irpc9-»>.6rtic  ■r*rip*,  it«i  tzpjti*,  itcci  irmitvni. — S.  Asterius,  Oral. 
in  Petrurn  ct  Fauluin,  T.  I.  Auclnrii  Grirr.  Pat. 

\     S.  Oplalus  Mil.  I.  ii.  n.2. 

t  ptpi»t6/uiu(  it  mn  Tile  irtTpac  /MiT»»4/ua^i  irirpo*  tr'awrei  ytp 
tfxi>.>.t  Txr  JUT)'.  6iwi>iKr  »««>  Jiff/ai'.  — S.  Cvril.  AK'X.  1  ii.  in  c.  xij.  Joan. 


304  GENERAL  TESTIMONIES. 

you  by  the  most  blessed  Pope  of  the  Roman  city,  since  BLESS- 
ED PETER,  WHO  IN  HIS  OWN  SEE  LIVES  AND 
PRESIDES,  grants  the  knowledge  of  the  true  faith  to  those 
that  seek  it."* 

The  solemn  testimony  of  the  bishops  assembled  from  all 
Christendom  may  be  added.  The  great  Council  of  Ephesus, 
held  in  the  year  431,  affords  us  a  most  s])lendid  evidence  of 
the  authority  exercised  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  admitted 
by  the  Universal  Church,  as  the  legitimate  prerogative  of  his 
See.  Nestorius,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  had  sought  to  adul- 
terate the  faith,  and  Cyril,  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  appeared 
as  its  strenuous  defender.  Celestine,  Bishop  of  Rome,  having 
been  informed  of  the  error,  addressed  Nestorius  a  letter  of  pa- 
ternal remonstrance,  and  authoritative  injunction,  concluding 
with  this  sentence  :  "  Know,  then,  manifestly,  that  this  is  our 
decree,  that  unless  you  preach  concerning  Christ  our  God  what 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  Alexandria,  and  the  whole  Catho- 
lic Church  holds,  as  also  the  holy  Church  of  the  great  city  of 
Constantinople  has  held  steadfastly  until  your  time  ;  and  unless 
you,  by  an  explicit  confession  in  writing,  condemn  this  per- 
fidious novelty,  which  attempts  to  separate  what  the  venerable 
Scripture  unites,  you  are  cast  forth  from  the  communion  of  the 
entire  Catholic  Church."  The  Pope  addressed  Cyril,  author- 
izing him  to  preside  in  his  place  in  the  synod,  but  charging 
him  most  strictly  to  execute  the  sentence  of  excommunication 
if,  within  the  time  specified,  Nestorius  should  not  retract.  The 
Fathers  proceeded  to  its  execution,  declaring  themselves  *'  con- 
strained to  do  so  by  the  canons  and  by  the  epistle  of  our  most 
holy  Father,  and  fellow  minister  Celestine,  Bishop  of  the 
Church  of  Rome."t  The  Pontifical  legates  having  arrived 
after  these  proceedings,  Juvenal,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  at  the 
opening  of  the  third  session,  inquired  of  the  legates  whether 
they  had  read  over  the  act  of  deposition.  Philip,  the  priest, 
one  of  the  legates,  replied  that  they  had,  and  that  they  felt  sa- 

*     S.  Petras  Chrys.  Ep.  ad  Eutycheten, 
t     P.  14G2,  Cone.  Col.  Hard.  Tom.  I. 


COUNCIL  OF   KPlllLSrs.  305 

lisfie«l  that  all  hail  been  ilonc  m  strict  accordance  with  the 
canons  ;  vet  he  requested  that  the  acts  should  be  read  anew  in 
the  council,  in  order  that  in  compliance  with  the  orders  received 
Iroin  Celcslinc,  they  niii'lit  conlirni  what  had  been  decreed!"* 
The  rctjiiest  was  ^n*aiitcd  wilhoul  dilliculi}  :  and  the  decrees 
having  been  read,  th(;  lej^atc  thus  began  the  eonlJrinatory  sen- 
tence :  "  It  is  not  doubted  by  any  one,  but  rather  it  has  been 
well  known  in  all  ages  {of  the  Church)^  that  the  lioly  and  most 
blessed  l*eler,  the  princet  and  head  of  the  Apostles,  the  pillar 
of  lailh,  and  the  loundalion  of  the  Catholic  Church,  received 
from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  and  Uedeenier  of  man- 
kind, the  keys  of  t!ie  kingdom  :  and  to  him  was  given  power 
to  bind  and  loose  sins,  who,  down  to  the  present  time  and  for- 
ever, in  his  successors  lives  and  ji'Dgls.  His  successor, 
then,  in  regular  order,  the  occupant  of  his  place,  our  holy  and 
most  blessed  Pope,  the  IJishop  Celestine,  has  sent  us  to  this 
holy  synod  to  supply  his  i)resence."  He  proceeds  to  state  the 
obstinacy  of  Neslorius,  who  sulVered  the  lime  prescribed  by 
the  Apostolic  See  to  elapse  without  retracting  his  error:  and 
then  declares  that  the  sentence  passeil  against  iiim  by  the  con- 
sent of  tlie  hishojjs  of  the  East  and  of  the  West  is  firm,  and 
that  he  is  cut  ofl'  from  the  communion  of  the  Catliolic  Church. 
The  other  two  legates  spoke  to  the  same  clVecl,  after  whom 
Cyril,  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  proposed  that  the  proceed- 
ings of  both  sessions  siiould  be  presented  to  the  legates  for 
subscription.  Arcadius,  one  of  them,  observed  that  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  holy  synod  were  such  that  they  could  not  but  con- 
firm them.  'J'he  synod  ol)served,  that  as  the  legates  had  spoken 
in  a  manner  becoming  them,  it  now  remained  for  them  to  fulfil 
their  promise,  and  subscribe  the  acts,  which  they  accordingly 
did.  'J'hus  in  all  things  was  seen,  as  I'liilip  the  legate  observed, 
the  union  of  the  holy  members  with  their  holy  head,  '*  for  your 


t     '*i*iX'^- — Actionc  3.  0)nc.  Kpli.  p.   I  !7r.  mid  1177.  Tmih.  I.  Hard. 
Col. 


30G  GENERAL  TESTIMONIES. 

blessedness,"  he  said,  addressing  the  Fathers,  '*  is  not  ignorant 
that  the  blessed  .Apostle  Peter  is  the  head  of  all  faith,  or  even 
of  the  Apostles:''^ 

I  know  not  what  more  solemn  and  splendid  testimony  could 
be  given  of  the  general  belief  of  the  divine  institution  of  the 
Primacy.  The  bishops  who  composed  this  venerable  assembly, 
were,  with  the  exception  of  the  Roman  legates,  oriental  and 
African  :  yet  they  heard,  without  a  murmur  of  contradiction,  the 
strong  assertions  of  the  legates  ; — they  submitted  their  acts  to 
them  for  confirmation — and  they  declared  themselves  constrain- 
ed to  execute  the  sentence  of  Celestine  against  Nestorius. 

The  great  Council  of  Chalcedon,  reporting  their  proceedings 
to  Leo  the  Great,  refer  to  his  letter,  which  they  had  received 
with  acclamations,  and  declare  that  "  he  is  established  the  in- 
terpreter for  all  of  the  voice  of  Peter  the  Apostle."  They  say 
that  he  presided  over  them,  as  the  head  over  the  members,  in 
the  persons  of  those  who  occupied  his  place :  and  they  speak 
with  indignation  and  horror  of  the  impiety  of  Dioscorus,  the 
fallen  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who,  to  his  heresy,  had  added 
frantic  violence  against  the  successor  of  Peter. — "  He  has," 
say  they,  "  extended  his  frenzy  even  against  him  to  whom  the 
care  of  the  vineyard  was  intrusted  by  the  Saviour,  namely, 
against  your  Apostolic  holiness."!  In  these  expressions  and 
acts  of  this  venerable  assembly,  as  well  as  of  that  of  Ephesus, 
you  have  the  clear  recognition  of  the  divine  institution  of  the 
Primacy, 

*     «   Ki<pdLxii  oxus  r»(  Tria-Tiui  «  *,  Tav  AvoToKm. — Act.  2.  Col.  1472. 
Tom.  II.  Edit.  H. 
t    T.  II.  p.  655.  Col.  Hard. 


LETTER   XXV 


INTERPOLATION  OF    I'lIE  FATIIEHJS. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

Yoi'R  chapter  on  the  interpolation  of  the  Fathers  indicates 
some  misgiving  as  to  the  result  of  their  examination.  You 
have  indeed  reason  to  despair  of  ever  overthrowing  the  Primacy 
or  any  other  Catholic  tenet  by  their  aid.  From  your  enume- 
ration some  might  be  led  to  think  that  every  passage  in  their 
works  relating  to  this  point  had  been  brought  forward,  or  at 
least,  that  all  the  witnesses,  up  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century, 
had  been  examined  :  but  it  must  now  be  seen  that  most  import- 
ant passages,  which  dissipate  any  obscurity  that  might  exist 
in  others,  have  been  left  unnoticed,  and  several  Fathers  have 
not  at  all  been  presented  for  examination.  I  could  have  added 
many  more,  but  I  have  reason  to  indulge  the  fear  which  you 
express,  that  this  tedious  investigation  may  prove  wearisome 
to  our  readers. 

You  state  your  "  conviction  that  the  expurgations  which  our 
scholars  have  made  of  these  ancient  writings  have  left  them 
still  far  from  immaculate."  Do  you  mean  to  insinuate  that  no 
reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  integrity  of  any  of  those  works  .' 
The  translator  of  Athanasius  states,  that  many  false  and  spuri- 
ous books  }jad  been  attrii)uted  to  him  :  but  have  not  the  learned 
laboured  successfully  to  separate  these  from  his  genuine  works  ? 
Are  there  not  many  works  of  this  and  other  Fathers  bearing 
evident  marks  of  authenticity,  which  Protestant  and  Catholic 
critics  unite  in  acknowledging  ?  The  assertion  of  the  Jansenist 
Quesnel  may  pa?s  for  what  it  is  worth  ;  but  what  friend  of  lite- 


308  INTERPOLATION  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

rature,  or  truth,  will  consent,  that,  on  such  a  vague  suspicion,  the 
splendid  monumenls  ol'  the  genius,  learning,  and  zeal  of  the 
early  ages,  should  be  all  marked  as  uncertain  ?  Let  this  literary- 
skepticism  be  indulged,  if  you  will,  wherever  there  is  a  shadow 
of  reason  to  support  it :  but  let  not  these  precious  records  be 
capriciously  subjected  to  suspicion,  merely  because  the  parti- 
san of  error  feels  himself  overwhelmed  by  their  harmonious 
evidence.  Whoever  calls  in  question  the  authenticity  of  a 
work,  should  show  the  intrinsic  characters  which  it  presents 
of  forgery,  or  at  least  the  absence  of  external  authority  to 
warrant  its  being  ascribed  to  its  allep^ed  author.  'J'he  man  who 
asserts  that  a  work  has  been  interpolated,  should  adduce  reason 
to  convince  us  that  the  passages  which  he  questions  are  not 
consistent  with  the  known  sentiments  of  the  author,  elsewhere 
clearly  expressed,  or  with  facts  which  the  author  must  have 
known,  and  would  not  have  contradicted.  Notwithstanding  your 
oft-repeated  professions  of  kindness  and  of  courtesy,  you  con- 
clude this  chapter  by  asserting  that  our  predecessors  have  confess- 
edly interpolated  the  works  of  the  Fathers  to  suit  the  doctrine 
of  their  day.  Should  I  retort  the  charge,  1  might  appear  unkind, 
but  certainly  I  would  be  supported  by  evidence  greater  than 
that  which  you  can  allege.  Many  of  the  works  rejected  by  the 
learned  as  supposititious,  inasmuch  as  they  were  once  errone- 
ously ascribed  to  authors  who  had  not  composed  them,  were 
not  literary  forgeries,  but  works  written  by  men  sound  in  faith, 
and  which  by  mere  mistake  were  attributed  to  others.  Some- 
times the  identity  of  name  caused  the  work  to  be  ascribed  to  an 
author  who  had  flourished  in  a  different  country  and  age: 
sometimes  the  want  of  any  name  led  to  the  conjecture  that  the 
work  belonged  to  some  celebrated  author  who  was  known  to 
have  treated  the  subject.  When  vellum  and  parchment  were 
scarce,  the  copying  of  a  small  work  at  the  end  of  a  large  volume 
gave  occasion  to  consider  both  as  the  production  of  the  same 
author.  Since  the  printing  of  books,  most  of  tfiese  errors  have 
been  detected,  by  a  critical  examination  of  tlie  works  them- 
selves, by  the  collection  of  manuscripts,  and  by  reference  to 
other  works  in  which  citations  were  made,  or  catalogues  given. 


8T  MAXIMl'S  OF  TURIN.  309 

Though  there  is  still  room  lor  the  exercise  of  just  criticism  to 
ascertain  the  correct  reading  of  some  passage,  or  the  authenti- 
city of  some  document,  reasonahle  evidence  of  the  want  of  au- 
thenticity must  be  demanded,  unless  we  choose  to  plunge  into 
the  gulf  of  universal  scepticism.  Were  we  to  act  on  your  appa- 
rent principle,  we  might  hesitate  to  admit  the  Bible  itself,  since 
it  is  undeniable  that  spurious  books  once  were  esteemed  as  di- 
vine, and  interpolations  or  alterations  of  the  Sacred  Text — some 
of  which  may  yet  remain — were  made  by  accident  or  fraud. 

Was  there  no  attempt  by  Catholic  writers  wilfully  to  pass 
under  some  illustrious  name  their  own  productions  t  There 
was,  but  from  motives  very  dilferent  from  those  which  you 
have  attributed  to  them.  Vigilius,  bishop  of  Thapsis,  in  the 
fifth  century,  published  some  works  under  the  name  of  Atha- 
nasius,  because  he  wished  to  avoid  the  Arian  persecution, 
which  by  writing  in  his  own  name  he  might  have  drawn  upon 
him.  Others,  like  Isidore  Mercator,  may  have  done  in  like 
manner  for  less  worthy  motives  :  but  no  Catholic  thereby  in- 
tended, or  could  have  hoped  to  introduce  a  new  dogma,  or  to 
give  rise  to  a  new  practice.  The  forgeries  proceeded  from 
Judaising  Christians  in  the  first  ages,  and  subsequently  for  the 
most  part  from  the  abettors  of  various  heresies.  An  enlight- 
ened criticism  will  not  regard  all  works  as  doubtful,  because 
sometimes  a  romance  is  published,  or  a  literary  hoax  proves 
successful.  I  will  submit  an  instance  of  a  suppositious  work, 
which  modern  Catholic  criticism  has  assigned  to  its  real  author, 
and  from  which  it  will  be  seen  how  little  the  suppositious  char- 
acter of  a  work  detracts  from  its  real  worth,  and  how  willing 
our  writers  are  to  assign  every  document  to  its  proper  author. 
Among  the  sermons  formerly  ascribed  to  St  Ambrose,  was  one 
on  the  festival  of  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  Paul,  which  is  now 
known  to  be  the  production  of  St  Mnximus,  bishop  of  Turin, 
who  nourished  about  the  middle  n{'  the  fifth  century.  The 
catalogue  of  his  discourses  was  given  by  d'ennadius  of  Mar- 
seilles, at  the  close  of  that  century,  and  it  served  to  dis- 
cover them  amidst   the   writings   o\    St  Ambrose   and    St  Au- 


310  INTERPOLATION  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

gusiin,  with  which  they  had  been  confounded.  The  error  does 
not  at  all  affect  their  authority,  for  though  Ambrose  flourished 
half  a  century  before  Maximus,  and  shed  a  brighter  light  on 
his  own  and  succeeding  ages,  yet  the  name  of  Maximus  is 
likewise  held  in  veneration  for  the  sanctity  of  his  life,  the  in- 
tegrity of  his  faith,  and  his  sacred  and  sublime  eloquence.  The 
critical  discovery  adds  another  witness  to  the  privileges  of  the 
prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  presents  another  link  of  the  chain 
of  traditionary  testimony.  "  Since,"  says  he,  "  all  the  bless- 
ed Apostles  obtain  equal  grace  of  holiness  before  God,  I  know 
not  how  Peter  and  Paul  seem  to  excel  the  others  by  a  certain 
peculiar  degree  of  the  virtue  of  faith  in  the  Saviour  :  which,  in- 
deed, we  can  prove  by  the  judgment  of  our  Lord  himself.  For 
to  Peter,  as  a  good  steward,  he  gave  the  key  of  the  heavenly 
kingdom  ;  on  Paul,  as  a  fit  doctor,  he  imposed  the  duty  of  ec. 
clesiastical  instruction :  so  that  whom  the  one  instructs  unto 
salvation,  the  other  receives  them  to  rest ;  and  Peter  opens  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  souls  of  those  whose  hearts  Paul 
opened  by  his  teaching Both  of  them,  therefore,  receiv- 
ed keys  from  the  Lord,  the  one  the  key  of  knowledge,  the 
OTHER  THE  KEY  OF  POWER  :  onc  dispenses  the  riches  of  immor- 
tality, the  other  bestows  the  treasures  of  knowledge  :  for  there 
are  treasures  of  knowledge,  as  it  is  written: — 'In  whom  are 
all  the  treasures  of  knowledge  hidden.'  Tlierefore,  blessed 
Peter  and  Paul  shine  forth  among  all  the  iVpostles,  and  excel 
by  a  certain  peculiar  prerogative.  But  it  is  uncertain  which  is 
to  be  preferred  to  the  other:  for  I  think  that  they  are  equal  in 
merits,  since  they  are  equal  in  suffering,  and  that  they  lived 
with  similar  devotedness  of  faith,  as  they  attained  together  to 
the  glory  of  martyrdom.  For  let  us  not  imagine,  that  it  hap- 
pened without  motive,  that,  on  the  same  day,  and  in  the  same 
place,  they  suffered  by  the  decree  of  the  same  tyrant.  They 
suffered  on  the  same  day,  that  they  might  attain  to  the  glory 
of  Ciirist  at  the  same  time, — in  the  same  place,  that  Rome 
should  possess  both, — under  the  same  persecutor,  that  equal 
cruelty  should  be  exercised  towards  both.   The  day,  then,  was 


KO.MK,   IlKAD  OF   NATIONS.  3J1 

decreed  in  conseciuenre  of  ihcir  incril — ilie  j)la(  o  for  their  glory, 
— the  persecutor  for  llieir  virtue.  Ami  in  w  luii  place  did  ihey 
suffer  martyrdom  ?  In  the  city  of  Rome,  which  obtains  the 
sovereignty,  and  is  the  liead  of  nations,  namely,  that  where  the 
head  of  superstition  was,  the  head  of  sanctity  might  repose  : 
and  wliere  the  princes  of  the  Ccnliles  dwelt,  the  princes  of 
the  churches  might  reside."* 

•     Scrni.  Ixv.  p.  lUi'.t.  Vol.  III.     Edit.  Baa.  inter  opera  Ainbrosii,  S. 
Maxiinus  Taurin. 


LETTER  XXVI. 

CLAIMS  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

Without  wishing  to  impugn  the  sincerity  with  which  you 
express  the  confidence  you  have  in  the  result  of  your  examina- 
tion, I  must  guard  the  reader  against  being  influenced  by  your 
conviction,  or  misled  by  your  professions. — "  I  conceive  it 
proved,"  you  say,  "  by  superabundant  testimony,  that  the  pri- 
mitive Church  of  Rome  professed  to  hold  no  authoritative  su- 
premacy over  the  other  churches,  and  that  she  interpreted  the 
language  of  Christ  to  Peter  in  precise  accordance  with  the  gen- 
eral voice  of  the  Fathers,  as  conveying  no  official  grant  of  su- 
preme power  or  domination."  You  may  conceive  all  this  ;  and 
it  is  perfectly  true  that  Rome,  neither  in  ancient  or  modern 
times,  has  claimed  any  domination  in  the  odious  sense  of  ca- 
pricious and  arbitrary  authority.  She  professed  herself  at  all 
times  powerless  against  the  truth,  but  powerful  for  the  truth, 
— to  level  every  height  that  exalteth  itself  against  the  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  to  bring  into  captivity  every  understanding 
to  the  obedience  of  Christ.  She  acknowledged  that  the  power 
which  the  Lord  had  given  her,  was  for  edification,  not  for  de- 
struction: yet  she  alleged  and  exercised  that  power,  and  she 
was  sustained  in  her  claims  by  the  general  voice  of  Christen- 
dom.*    As  you  have  given  few  quotations  from  the  writings 

*  "  Long  before  the  earliest  epoch  that  can  be  fixed  for  modern  his- 
tory, and,  indeed,  to  speak  fairly,  almost  as  far  back  as  ecclesiastical 
testimonies  can  carry  us,  the  Bishops  of  Rome  had  been  venerated  as 
first  in  rank  among  the  rulers  of  the  Church."  This  is  the  admission  of 
Hallam,  a  learned   living  author,  nowise  disposed  to  favour  Catholic 


WRlTlNCiS  AND  ACTS  OF  TllK    PONTlFtS.  313 

of  ihc  aiicieiil  limnaii  Fonlilfs,  whicli  allbrd  ihe  most  solemn 
evidence  of  \v!)al  ilio  priniiiive  (.-liiirch  of  Home  jirofe.sscd  to 
hold,   I  submit  to  the  reader  some  passages. 

The  authority  wliich  Victor  exercised  over  the  eastern 
churches  has  already  been  seen.  St  Cornelius,  in  his  letter  to  St 
Cyprian,  gives  him  the  pleas^ing  intellitrence,  that  t^everal  \%ho 
had  been  involved  in  the  scljism  of  Novatus  liad  returned  to  the 
unity  of  tlie  Church,  and  with  deep  conjpunction  made  the 
public  avowal  of  tlieir  faith  and  submission,  lie  gives  the  pre- 
cise words  in  which  it  was  made  :  "  We  know  that  Cornelius 
was  ciiosen  by  Almigiily  God,  and  by  Christ  our  Lord,  Bisliop 

of  the  most  holy  Catholic  Church.    We  confess  our  error 

For  we  are  not  ignorant  that  there  is  one  (iod,  and  one  Christ, 
the  Lord  whom  we  have  confessed,  one  Holy  Ghost,  and  that 
there  should  be  one  Bishop  in  the  Catholic  Churcli."*  It  is 
clear,  that  at  this  early  period,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  styled 
"Bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  and  the  one  Bishop  placed 
in  it  by  Christ  our  Lord  for  its  government.  He  liad,  indeed, 
numerous  colleagues,  but  he  was  the  one  Bishop  whose  vigi- 
lance and  authority  extended  over  all. 

Julius,  whose  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Allianasius  have 
been  already  noticed,  had  no  less  exalted  an  idea  of  the  charac- 
ter which,  as  successor  ol"  Peter,  he  sustained  in  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ. t 

Pope  Siricius,  about  the  year  385,  writing  to  Ilimcrius  of 
Tarragona,  and  prescribing  certain  rules  to  be  observed,  says: 
**  Henceforth,  let  all  priests  observe  the  foregoing  rule,  who  do 
not  wish  to  be  separated  from  the  solidity  of  the  Apostolic 
rock,  on  which  Christ  built  the  universal  Church."  .  .  .  . 
'*  We  decree,  by  a  general  enactment,  w  hat  must  be  followed 
hereafter,  and  what  nuist  be  shunned  by  all  the  churches." — 
He  orders  his  decree   to  he  communicated  to  the  bishops  of 

t<'nets.  Soc  iiifi  View  of  the  State  of  Kuropo  during  the  Middle  Agci;. 
Ch.  vii.p.  2(51).  Ed.  Now  York. 

•  Cornehus  ad  Cypriaiuim.  Coll.  ('onr.  Labb^-.  Tom.  I.  p.  ^'M .  Ed. 
Flor. 

t      Ep.  ad  Orient.  HUpra.    Ivlt.  xiv.  p.  Ic4,et8rq. 
2  B 


314  CLAIMS  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE   ROMAN  CHURCH. 

Carthage,  Boetia,  Lusitania  and  Gallicia,  that  it  may  be  invio- 
lably observed,  and  all  pretext  of  excuse  be  taken  away,  which 
he  determines  never  to  receive."* 

St  Innocent,  who  lived  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
thus  writes  to  Deeentius,  bishop  of  Eugubium  : — "  Who  does 
not  know,  or  perceive,  that  what  was  delivered  to  the  Roman 
Church  by  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  Peter,  and  is  still  re- 
tained, must  be  observed  by  all  ?"t  In  his  letter  to  the  Coun- 
cils of  Africa,  he  speaks  still  more  solemnly  of  the  privile- 
ges of  the  Primacy,  especially  in  causes  of  faith. 

St  Zosimus,  addressing  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of 
Cartilage,  observes  :  "  The  tradition  of  the  Fathers  has  giv- 
en so  great  authority  to  the  Apostolic  See,  that  no  one  would 

dare  call  its    judgment  into  question So  great  power 

canonical  antiquity,  by  universal  consent,  ascribed  to  this  Apos- 
tle, from  the  very  promise  of  Christ  our  Lord,  that  he  should 
loose  what  was  bound,  and  bind  what  was  loose. "J 

I  shall  close  this  evidence  with  one  out  of  many  passages  of 
Leo  the  Great.  "  Christ,"  says  he,  "  having  assumed  him 
(Peter)  to  a  participation  in  his  indivisible  unity,  was  pleased 
that  he  should  be  styled  what  he  himself  was,  saying:  '  Thou 
art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church  :'  that  the 
building  of  the  eternal  temple  by  the  wonderful  gift  of  the 
grace  of  God  should  rest  on  tlie  solidity  of  tiie  rock,  strength- 
ening his  Church  by  this  firmness,  so  that  neither  human 
temerity  could  afl^ect  it,  nor  the  gates  of  hell  prevail  against  it. 
But,  whosoever  attempts  to  infringe  on  his  power,  indulges  ex- 
cessive and  impious  presumption,  in  seeking  to  violate  the 
most  sacred  firmness  of  this  rock,  God,  as  we  have  said,  being 
the  builder."§ 

You,  yourself,  suppose  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  conceived 


*     Syricius  Himerio,  Cone.  Col.  Hard.  Tom.  I.  Col.  848. 
t     S.  Innocent  Decentio.  Jb.   Col.  il95.     See,  also,   his  Letter  to  the 
African  Prelates.  Apud.  Aug.  Ep.  181.  Col.  035.  Tom.  II. 

X     S.  Zosimus,  Ep.  1'2.  apud  Couslant,  Aurelio  ac  caeteris,  &c. 
§     S.  Leo.  Tom.  11.  Col.  1315.  Edit.  Bullerin. 


HYPOTHESIS  OF   BlSHOl'   HOl'KINS.  315 

ihe  idea  of  eslablishiiij^  llieir  supremacy  at  a  very  early  day  ;* 
how,  then,  you  can  consisleniiy  say,  liiat  iho  priruilive  ('hiirch 
of  Home,  of  which  ihey  were  the  organs,  professed  to  hold  no 
aulhoritalive  supremacy  over  the  other  cliurches,  is  to  me  in- 
explicable. You  attribute  their  plan  to  human  policy,  though 
you  aihnit  their  sincerity  in  thinking  that  the  peace  and  pros- 
perity of  the  Churcii  would  thereby  be  greatly  promoted  :  but 
on  what  grounds  do  you  ascribe  to  human  policy,  what  they 
uniformly  attribute  to  divine  institution?  and  by  what  right  do 
you  atlribule  worldly  wisdom  to  those  whom  their  iioly  lives 
and  gb)rious  deaths  prove  to  have  been  the  chosen  ones  to 
whom  the  Father  revealed  tlie  secrets  of  his  kingdom  ? 

You  ask  yourself  a  puzzling  question:  "  how  the  doctrine 
of  il;c  Papal  supremacy  could  have  been  admitted  by  the 
Churcli,  if  it  were  not  founded  upon  tlie  authority  of  the  Re- 
deemer?" Your  answer  is,  that  "  tlie  rank  and  influence  of 
the  Roman  See,  having  given  it  a  great  and  increasing  prepon- 
derance in  the  councils  of  the  Church,  the  canons  of  these 
councils  by  degrees  confirmed  its  dignity.  Thus,  the  right  of 
receiving  appeals  was  conferred  upon  it  lirst  by  the  Council  of 
JSardica,  some  years  subsequent  to  tlie  Council  of  Nice.  The 
acknowledgment,  that  it  was  the  first  of  all  the  churches,  was 
made  still  later  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople." — Why  did 
not  you  explain  how  it  attained  that  rank  and  influence,  when 
the  very  circumstance  of  the  city  being  the  seat  of  empire,  ex- 
posed its  Bishop  to  all  the  fury  of  persecution,  when,  consequent- 
ly, he  could  borrow  no  lustre,  and  derive  no  influence  from 
the  tiirone.t  It  was  "the  imiesidino  Church,"  even  when  Igna- 


*  An  instance  of  tlio  oxorciso  of  supremo  power  occurred  before  the 
days  of  Victor,  in  the  absolution  of  Cordon  from  the  excommunication 
intlicted  by  the  Asiatic  bisiiopg  — "  Another,  whom  the  Church  of  this 
age  excommunicated  for  heresy,  was  Cerdon,  who,  coming  to  Rome 
when  }Iyginus  was  Bishop  there,  recanted  his  errors,  and  was  restored 
to  communion. — Poller  on  Church  (inrcrnmfnt,  p.  3IJ3. 

i  Vail  ntinian  111,  in  the  year  IV),  in  his  constitution,  called  *'  Novel,' 
makes  mention  of  the  dijrnity  f)f  the  llomancity,  but  dwells  especially  on 
the  authority   of  blessed    I'cter,  ns    recognised    by    the  canons   of  the 


316  CLAIMS  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 

lius  went  to  martyrdom, — it  was,  when  Irenaeus  wrote,  "  the 
Church  of  more  excellent,  more  powerful  principality," — it 
was  for  Cyprian,  who  lived  nearly  a  century  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice,  "  the  princely  chair."*  You  have  staled,  what  you 
seem  now  to  forget,  that  the  sixth  canon  of  that  council  was 
directed  to  guard  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Roman  Bi- 
shop.t  Were  this  the  fact,  it  would  be  strange  that,  a  few 
vears  afterwards,  the  Council  of  Sardica  should  have  enlarged 
the  privileges  of  the  Roman  See,  by  making  it  a  high  court 
of  appeals  from  the  sentence  of  councils,  by  wliich  bishops 
were  deposed.  It  is  for  you  to  reconcile  these  statements.  At 
the  same  time  you  may  explain  how  it  hapjiened,  that  long 
before  the  Councils  of  Sardica,  or  Nice,  Basilides,  a  deposed 
bishop,  of  whom  St  Cyprian  speaks,  going  to  Rome,  imposed 
on  Pope  Stephen,  not  acquainted  with  the  facts,  and  obtained 
a  decree  that  he  should  be  restored  to  his  bishopric.  It  may 
be  also  worth  explanation,  how,  in  the  interval  between  the 
Councils  of  Nice  and  Sardica,  tlie  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  for 
whose  protection  the  Nicene  canon  is  said  by  you  to  have  been 
specially  made,  was  accused  to  the  PontifT,  anticipated  the 
summons  to  appear  before  his  tribunal,  submitted  to  trial,  or, 
rather,  appealed  to  his  justice,  and  had  the  sentence  of  depo- 
sition reversed  by  his  high  authority.  At  the  same  time,  two 
other  bishops,  Paul  pnd  Marcelius,  of  Ancyra,  appealed  to  the 

Church  :  "  Cum  igitur  sedis  ApostolicEe  primatum  B.  Petri  meritum, 
qui  est  princeps  sacerdotalis  coronjE,  et  Romanaj  dignitas  civitatis,sacraB 
etiam  synodi  firmavit  auctoritas."  "  The  merit  of  blessed  Peter,  w^ho  is 
the  prince  of  the  priestly  order,  and  the  dignity  of  the  Roman  city,  the 
authority,  also,  of  the  holy  synod,  strengthened  the  Primacy  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See." — See  Hallam,  Middle  Ages,  c.  7,  p.  270. 

*  "  At  a  much  earlier  period  {thmi  that  of  Val entinian) ,  Irenaeus  ra- 
ther vaguely,  and  Cyprian  more  positively,  admit,  or  rather  assert,  the 
Primacy  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  the  latter  seems  even  to  have 
considered  as  a  kind  of  centre  of  Catholic  unity." — Hallam,  ibidem. 

t  Cabassutius  understands  it,  on  the  contrary,  as  grounding  the  Al- 
exandrine privileges  on  the  implicit  concession  of  the  Roman  Bishop, 
v.'ho  knew  and  approved  of  them  :  "  quia  illud  ei  jus  tribuere  solet  Ro- 
luanus  episcoj)Us." — JVotitia.  EccL  p.  112. 


COr.NClL  OF   SAHUK  A.  .'H  7 

PonlilT  from  the  senlcncc  of  inferior  trihimals,  and  Sozomen, 
the  Greek  historian,  gives  us  in  these  words  the  result.  ♦♦  The 
Hoiuan  Bishop  havin<r  taken  cojjnizance  of  the  cases  of  each  of 
lliem,  and  tinding  them  all  to  harmonize  in  the  Nicene  faith, 
admitted  them  to  his  communion.     And  since,  on  account  of 

THE   DIOMTY  OF   HIS  8kK,  TIIK  (ARE  OF  AliL   nKLONOKI)  TO   HIM, 

he  restored  eacli  one  to  his  clnirch."* 

These  facts  are  inex{)lical)lo  in  llie  hypotliesis  that  the  right 
of  appeal  was  conferred  hy  the  Fathers  ofSardica  on  the  IIolv 
See.  A  close  inspection  of  the  two  canons  that  regard  this 
matter,  will  convince  you  that  the  Fathers  conceded  no  such 
right,  though  they  fully  recognised  its  existence.  The  first 
enactment  which  they  made  on  this  suhject,  was  intended  to 
correct  an  abuse,  not  to  confer  a  privilege.  Before  this,  a  con- 
demned bishop  had  the  facility  of  obtaining  a  new  trial  from 
the  bishops  of  the  neighbouring  province,  without  alleging  sa- 
tisfactory reasons.  To  prevent  this,  it  was  enacted  that  no 
new  trial  should  be  granted,  unless  by  the  special  autliority  of 
the  holy  See,  who  shoidd  appoint  the  judges.  This  enactment 
abridged  the  power  of  the  Metropolitans,  who  could  no  longer 
grant  a  new  trial,  whicli,  before,  was  left  to  their  discretion. 
With  regard  to  appeals  to  the  Pope,  "  from  the  judgment  of 
those  bishops  who  belonged  to  the  neighbouring  parts,"  the 
council,  at  the  suggestion  of  (laudenlius,  decreed,  that  if  a 
bishop  "should  proclaim  lliat  his  cause  shoidd  be  lieard  in  the 
city  of  Rome,  another  bishop  should  not,  after  his  appeal,  by 
any  means,  be  ord.iined  in  the  place  of  him  who  appears  to  be 
deposed,  unless  the  cause  be  deterniiiied  !)y  the  judgment  of 
the  Roman  Bishop."  This  enactment  su|>poses  the  rii^ht  of 
appeal,  and  does  not  create  it;  but  it  restrains  the  provincial 


*  O tat  it  TMc  xoLiTeir  miJt/uttietc  atvTO*  irforntiovfftic  //«  Tilr  ttpiay  tcC 
0-/}rc(/,  iimrai  Tjir  tiisi  tKM.\tta iai  xit'tietz*. — Sozomen,  1.  iii.  Hist.  EccI 
c.  7.  "  The  opinion  of  the  Roman  Spc'b  supremacy,  seems  to  have  pre- 
vailed very  nuich  in  the  fourth  century.  FIcury  brinjjH  remnrknblc 
proof  of  this  from  the  writinj^H  of  Sorraten,  Sozonn-n,  AmmianuB.  Mar- 
ccllinufl,  and  Oplalufl." — Ilallam.  MidtUe  .lifts,  ch  vii.  p.  M7{). 
2  B* 


318  CLAIMS  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 

bishops  from  proceeding  to  the  ordination  of  a  new  bishop, 
even  after  a  second  trial,  should  the  condemned  bishop  inter- 
pose an  appeal  for  a  tiiial  hearing  in  the  Roman  conrt.  It  de- 
termines this  appeal  to  have  the  elTect  of  suspending  all  pro- 
vincial acts.*  The  case  of  Athanasiiis,  into  whose  See,  whilst 
his  cause  was  pending  at  Rome,  Gregorius  had  been  intruded, 
gave  occasion  to  these  canons.  Had  the  right  of  appeal  been 
conferred  by  that  council,  it  would  still  be  worthy  of  remark 
that  it  was  with  a  view  to  lionour  the  chair  of  Peter.  The  in- 
Huence  of  the  Roman  Bishop,  had  it  at  all  originated  in  the 
greatness  of  tiie  imperial  city,  must  have  been  on  the  wane  ever 
since  Constantine  raised  the  new  seat  of  empire  at  Byzantium. 
The  prejudices  of  Constantius  sliould  have  made  him  view, 
with  peculiar  jealousy,  every  new  privilege  of  a  See  whose 
Bishop  was  the  avowed  and  implacable  enemy  ofArianism, 
and  had  so  lately  sustained  Athanasius  against  the  Arian  faction, 
which  that  emperor  so  much  favoured.  The  Fathers  of  Sar- 
dica  had  been  called  together  by  the  letters  of  this  Arian  empe- 
ror, at  the  instance  of  Constans,  whose  influence  Julius  em- 
ployed for  that  purpose.  Every  thing,  then,  concurred  to 
persuade  them  to  diminish,  rather  than  augment,  the  pre- 
rogatives of  that  See  ;  and  nothing  could  have  induced  them  to 
recognise  its  superiority,  or  admit  its  riglils,  but  the  deep-rooted 
conviction  that  they  were  the  rich  inheritance  bequeathed  by 
the  prince  of  the  Apostles  to  his  successors. 

With  regard  to  the  statements  of  Fleury,  you  may  enjoy  the 
benefit  of  them  as  far  as  they  may  be  sustained  by  historical 
facts;  wherever  these  are  wanting,  we  are  free  to  dissent  from 
his  peculiar  views,  or  reject  his  statements.  But  when  you 
claim  "his  acknowledgment  as  conclusive,  that  a  vast  and  de- 
plorable change  has  passed  over  our  primitive  doctrine,"  you 
mistake  doctrine  for  discipline,  and  you  confound  the  extent  of 
prerogative  with  essential  rights.  Fleury  was  of  opinion  that 
the  false  decretals  served  for  the  amplification  of  papal  prero- 

**  See  "  Del  Concilio  di  Sardica  Dissertazione  Polemico-Canonica, 
Roma,  1783." 


FLEURV's  SKNTl.MKNTS.  319 

galive,  wliicli,  with  other  French  divines,  he  was  anxious  to 
confine  within  tlie  narrowest  limits:  but  he  and  they  loudly 
prochiimed  tiie  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  divine  institution  of  llie 
Primacy.  It  is  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  examine  tlie  correct- 
ness of  these  views,  as  I  am  only  anxious  to  vindicate  doctrine, 
without  embarrassing  the  invesligalion  by  disputes  about  the 
extent  of  privilege  ;  but  1  may  be  allowed  to  observe,  with  a 
modern  Protestant  writer,  that,  some  years  before  the  compila- 
tion of  Isidore,  *'  there  was  a  genuine  collection  of  canons,  pub- 
lished by  Adrian  I.,  in  785,  which  contain  nearly  the  same 
principles,  and  many  of  which  are  copied  by  Isidore,  as  well 
as  Charlemagne,  in  his  capitularies."* 

•     Hallam,  Middle  Ages,  p.  273. 


LETTER  XXVII. 

TEMPORAL  POWER. 


Right  Reverend  Sir: 

Having  vindicated  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  Holy  See, 
by  the  divine  authority  of  Scripture,  and  the  testimonies  of  the 
venerable  ancients,  I  should  consider  my  task  completed;  but 
I  regret  to  find  that  you  have  presented  another  topic  for  dis- 
cussion, which  is  more  likely  to  awaken  prejudice,  than  to 
dispose  for  the  investigation  of  truth.  The  temporal  power  of 
the  Pope  is,  you  would  appear  to  believe,  and  are  willing  to 
persuade  others,  an  article  of  Catholic  faith,  or,  at  least,  was 
proposed  as  such  for  several  ages  by  the  Popes  who  sitccess- 
ively  occupied  St  Peter's  chair.  You  even  intimate  that  each 
Catholic  is  sworn  to  sustain  the  exercise  of  that  power,  should 
it  be  attempted,  and  you  allege  to  this  effect  a  portion  of  "the 
profession  of  faith,"  published  by  Pius  IV. :  "  I  acknowledge 
the  holy  Catholic  and  Apostolical  Roman  Church  to  be  the 
mother  and  mistress  of  all  cliurches,  and  I  promise  and  swear 
true  obedience  to  the  Roman  bisliop,  the  successor  of  St  Peter, 
the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ."  Though 
you  are  mistaken  in  supposing  that  this  oath  is  taken  by  every 
Catholic,  since  it  is  almost  exclusively  confined  to  persons 
occupying  some  office  or  dignity  in  the  Church,  or  to  converts, 
on  their  admission  to  her  communion,  yet  I  freely  admit  that 
the  obligation  which  it  implies,  is  common  to  every  member  of 
the  Catholic  ('hurch.  It  is  manifestly  no  more  than  submission 
to  the  spiritual  authority  of  tlie  Pontiff,  for  obedience  is  pro- 
mised him  only  as  successor  of  the  fisherman,  and  vicegerent 


ALLEGIANCE  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  321 

of  Ilim  whose  kiiio^dom  is  not  of  iliis  world.  'J'lie  prolales  and 
priests  who  huve  iiiatle  lh:il  premise  al  the  foot  of  the  ahar,  have 
not  liesilaled,  no  more  than  tlie  laity,  to  stand  forward  before 
the  public  tribunals,  and,  on  their  oaihs,  renounce  allegiance  to 
every  foreign  princ^e  or  poiefitate.  You  insist  that  *'  it  is  plainly 
impossible  to  know  what  true  obedience  means,  unless  we 
understand  the  extent  to  which  the  Pope  has  a  just  right  to 
demand  it."  Notwithstanding  the  disputes  of  tiie  schools,  as 
to  the  extent  of  pontifical  prerogative,  we  understand  j)erfectly 
well  what  true  obedience  nicaiis,  tiaincly,  submission  to  the 
legitimate  exercise  of  pontifical  authority,  as  generally  recog- 
nised and  admitted  by  the  (.'atholic  Church.  It  consequently 
implies  submission  to  those  decrees  which  are  directed  to  main- 
tain the  general  order  of  the  Church,  so  wisely  regulated  by 
the  canons,  which  have  emanated  from  (leneral  Councils,  or 
from  the  Holy  See  itself.  We  know  tiiai  no  obedience  is  due 
to  any  authority,  in  any  thing  immoral  or  wrong.  In  command- 
ing us  to  honour  our  parents,  God  has  not  appended  any  limi- 
tation to  the  commandment;  and  yet,  no  one  feels  that  it  war- 
rants obedience  in  any  thing  adverse  to  the  Divine  law. 

With  the  disputes  which  once  agitated  the  schools  and  the 
world,  with  regard  to  the  rights  of  Poi)es  over  sovereigns,  we 
have  nothing  to  do  :  we  live  in  a  dinVrcnt  stale  of  society  from 
that  which  gave  rise  to  them,  'i'he  Ponlifl'is  no  longer  the 
recognised  head  of  the  commonwealth  of  Christendom,  as  he 
naturally,  and  almost  insensibly  became,  when  the  nations  of 
Europe,  being  all  Catholic,  looked  uj)  to  him  as  the  common 
Father  of  all,  the  highest  interpreter  of  the  relative  duties  and 
rights  of  all,  and  tlieir  most  sacred  and  powerful  protector. 
"  'J'he  l*ope,"  says  Sir  Hdward  Sandys,  a  Protestant,  "  was  the 
common  F'ather,  adviser,  and  conductor  of  Christians,  to  recon- 
cile llieir  enmities,  and  decide  their  dilfcrences."*  Kings  ap- 
pealed to  him  tojud;^'e  of  the  justice  of  their  complaints  against 
each  other,  before  they  summoned  their  subjects  to  the  field  of 

*     Survey  of  Europe,  p.  202. 


322  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

battle  to  avenge  their  wrongs.*  Nations  raised  their  voice  to 
him,  imploring  him  to  admonish  the  sovereign  who  abused  his 
power,  lest  suffering  sliould  goad  them  into  revolt,  and  the 
horrors  of  anarchy  succeed  ihe  more  tolerable  evils  of  oppress- 
ion. Before  Gregory  VII.  hurled  the  pontifical  anathema  against 
Henry,  the  Saxon  subjects  of  this  monarch  had  accused  him, 
to  Alexander,  the  predecessor  of  this  PontiiT,  as  having  com- 
mitted flagrant  injustice,  in  deprivingOthoof  Bavaria  of  his  duke- 
dom.t  Impatient  of  his  tyrannic  sway,  they  afterwards  broke 
out  into  open  revolt,  and  the  auihoriiy  and  mediation  of  Gre- 
gory were  employed  to  iiuhice  submission,  with  a  pledge  that 
he  would  use  his  influence  on  tlie  side  of  justice.  It  was  only 
when  the  excesses  of  Henry  defied  all  remedy,  and  were  ag- 
gravated by  a  direct  attack  on  the  Pontiff  himself,  in  an  attempt 
to  depose  him,  that  Gregory  ventured  to  declare  that  the  ties 
whicii  hitherto  had  bound  his  subjects  to  such  a  monarch,  were 
snapped  asunder. J  The  ground  of  this  extraordinary  act,  al- 
leged by  a  writer  almost  cotemporary,  was  the  violation  of  a 
compact  between  freemen  and  their  elective  head.  "  Freemen," 
said  this  writer,  "put  over  them  Henry  as  king,  on  condition 
that  he  should  study  to  judge  his  constituents  with  justice,  and 
govern  them  with  royal  solicitude  :  which  compact  he  has  con- 
stantly broken  and  slighted.  Therefore,  even  without  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Apostolic  See,  the  princes  could  justly  refuse  to  ac- 
knowledge him  any  longer  as  king,  since  he  disregarded  the 
fulfilment  of  the  compact,  to  which  he  had  assented  at  his  elec- 
tion, and  which,  being  violated,  he  could  no  longer  be  king."§ 

*  See  Novalis,  Schriften,  Berlin,  1826,  1  Th.,  p.  191 ;  also  Lettres  sur 
THistoire,  Tom.  II  ,  Lett.  41,  et  Tom.  HI,  Lett.  G2;  also  in  Mat.  Paris, 
A.  D.  Hi)."),  the  appeal  of  Richard  I.  to  Celestine  TIL,  against  the  duke 
of  Austria,  for  having  detained  him  prisoner  atTrivallis.  The  Pope  ex- 
communicated the  Duke  for  refusing  to  do  justice. — Quoted  by  Milner, 
Letter  40,  on  Supremacy. 

t     See  Baronii  Annales,  Tom.  XL,  an.  1072,  p.  405, 

t     Ibidem,  an.  1073,  p.  479. 

§  "  Liberi  homines  Ilenricum  eo  pacto  sibi  prneposucrunt  in  regem, 
ut  electores  suos  juste  judicare,  et  regali  providentia  gubernare  satage- 


ABSOLl'TION    FROM   ALLEGIANCE.  323 

There  is,  then,  a  cIosit  afliiiily  ihari  at  first  apjicars,  belwecn 
the  poliiical  principles  of  lliat  a«,'e  and  those  of  the  present  day. 
Tlie  crown  was  held  on  the  sireii{(i!j  of  a  virtual,  if  not  express 
compact,  which  necessarily  snj)posed  correlalivc  ohIitjMtioiis  on 
the  sovereign  and  tiie  people."  The  Pontill  did  not  prtti  nd  that 
he  could,  at  will,  annul  these  obliuaiions,  hut,  on  tiie  conliary, 
he  used  all  his  inlluence  to  obtain  'heir  fullilnient;  and  when, 
after  every  ellort  hai  failed,  he  it^sued  the  sentence  of  deposi- 
tion, he  meant  to  dispense  with  no  moral  duty,  but  authorita- 
tively to  declare  that,  in  consequence  of  the  abuse  of  power,  it 
had  reverted  to  those  by  whom  it  bad  been  committetl  to  the 
sovereign,  in  trust  for  the  public  giKul. 

The  justness  of  this  view  of  the  principles  on  which  (iretrory 
and  some  ol  his  successors  acted,  will  appear  from  comparison 
between  a  modern  absolution  from  the  oath  of  allegiance  with  one 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  After  the  etiumeration  of  the  griev- 
ances which  the  American  colonies  had  suffered  from  Ci'eorge 
III.,  the  Declaration  of  Independence  concludes  :  •'  We,  there- 
fore, the  representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
general  congress  assembled,  appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge 
of  the  world  for  the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  do,  in  the  name, 
and  by  authority,  of  the  good  people  of  these  colonies,  sob  mnly 
publish  and  declare,  that  these  united  colonies  are,  and  of 
right  ought  to  be,  free  and  independent  states;  that  they  auk  AB- 
SOLVED FKOM  all  allegiance  TO  THi.  I'.iuTisu  CROWN;  and 
that  all  poliiical  connexion  between  them  and  the  stale  of  Great 
Britain  is,  and  ou-jbt  to  be,  totally  dissolved." — In  like  man- 
ner, the  enumeration  of  oaths  made  to  the  Pontiff  by  Henry  on 
his  coronation,  and   on  other  occasions,  and  afterwards  violal- 


ret,  quod  pactum  ille  po8toaprtDvaricari,rl  contcmncrc  non  cessavit,  cVc. 
Ergo,  et  absque  sedia  ApostoUcoj  judicio,  principos  cum  pro  rege  mcrilo 
refutare  posscnt,  cum  pactum  adimplcre  coMlempserit,  quod  iis  pro  eltc- 
tione  sua  promisi^ral ;  cjuo  non  adimph-to,  ner.  rex  esse  poterat." — Vila 
Grcgorii  VII.,  in  Muralori  Script.  lU-r.,  Ital.,  T.  III.,  p.  'M2. 

•  Thus,  in  cdU,  Guido  was  elected  king  of  Italy,  to  protect  and  ;rovern 
with  royal  care.  "  Ad  protegendum  el  rcgalilcr  gubern;u>duui." — An- 
nali  dltaUa,  Maratori,  Tom.  XII.  p.  12-'). 


324  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

ed,  as  also  of  violence,  rapine,  and  other  crimes,  precedes  the 
sentence  pronounced  by  Innocent  IV.  in  the  first  Council  of 
Lateran  : — "  Tlie  aforesaid  prince,"  says  Innocent,  "  having 
rendered  himself  so  unworthy  of  tlie  empire  and  kingdom, 
and  of  all  honour  and  dignity,  and  being  cast  off  by  God  on  ac- 
count of  his  iniquities,  that  he  should  not  reign,  or  command  ; 
and  being  bound  fast  by  his  own  sins,  and  cast  away,  we  show 
and  denounce  him  as  deprived  by  the  Lord  of  all  honour  and 
dignity,  and  nevertheless,  by  our  sentence  we  deprive  him,  and 
absolve  for  ever  from  their  oath,  all  who  are  bound  to  him  by 
the  oath  of  allegiance."*  In  both  cases,  tliere  is  a  solemn  de- 
claration, that  the  people  are  absolved  from  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance: grievances,  excesses,  and  tyranny  are  alleged  as  the 
ground  of  either  declaration.  The  American  declaration  is 
made  by  men  who  lay  no  claim  to  any  divine  autliority  in  ex- 
pounding moral  obligation,  but  rest  on  facts  of  public  notoriety, 
and  principles  of  natural  right :  the  Pontifical  declaration  ema- 
nates from  one  recognised  as  the  authoritative  guardian  of  faith 
and  morals,  and  is  grounded  on  facts  equally  notorious ; — on 
pledges  solemnly  given  and  violated,  and  on  principles  result- 
ing from  the  very  frame  of  society  as  it  then  existed.  It  was 
intended  and  calculated  to  give  the  sanction  of  religion  to  the 
assertion  of  natural  right,  and  to  quiet  the  conscience  of  the 
timorous,  by  showing  that  the  public  trust,  having  been  flagrantly 
abused,  the  pledge  of  fealty  given  to  the  liolder  of  it  ceased  to 
be  obligatory,  and  the  right  of  choosing  a  more  faitliful  guar- 
dian of  order,  reverted  to  those  whose  privilege  it  was  to 
choose  him.  The  Pontiff  accordingly  added:  "Let  those, 
then,  to  whom  the  election  of  an  emperor  in  the  said  empire 
belongs,  freely  choose  his  successor."!  I  am  not  surprised, 
that  those  who  have  proclaimed  llie  divine  origin  and  absolute 
character  of  regal  authority,  should  veliemently  inveigh  against 
these  acts  of  the  Pontiffs  ;  but  I  am  astonished  that  the  princi- 

*     Cone.  Lug.  T.  VII.  Cone.  Hard.  p.  385. 

t  "  111!  autem  ad  quos  in  eodem  imperio  Imperatoris  spectat  electio, 
eligant  hbere  successorcm." — Innoe.  IV.  in  sent.  dep.  Frederici  Cone. 
hu^.  I.  T.  VII.  Cone.  Hard.  p.  380. 


KOVAI.TV   A   TRIST.  325 

pics  OH  wliicli  llie  Koiuaii  l*oiuiirs  ucled,  should  iiol  be  r(v<pcct- 
ed  by  ihose  who  regard  royally  as  a  trust  for  the  peo|>l«  .  and 
the  highest  officer  in  every  form  of  goveriiinenl  as  a  public 
servant,  wlio  may  be  dragged  from  his  elevation  if  he  abuse  his 
power, — princij)les  enterlaiiud  and  acied  on  in  the  ages  erro- 
neously supposed  to  have  been  unillumined  by  a  spark  of  lib- 
erty. Long  before  the  lirst  instance  of  Pontifical  inlcrfcrenco, 
forfeiture  was  deemed  a  consequence  of  the  violaiioii  of  the 
condition  on  whicli  kings  and  emperors  held  their  scep- 
tres. 'J'liis  was  the  sentiment,  and  the  feeling  of  those 
ages,  and  the  Poiititfs,  whom  circumstances  placed  at  the 
head  of  society  thus  constructed,  gave  expression  to  that 
sentiment,  and  the  sanction  of  religion  to  that  feeling.  "  The 
public  opinion  of  Europe  in  t!ie  eleventli  century,"  says  a  mo- 
dern writer,  '*  was  represented  by  a  truly  great  man,  Hilde- 
brand,  or,  as  he  was  called  after  his  accession  to  the  chair  of 
St  Peter,  Gregory  VII.  In  his  own  age,  every  one  of  these 
measures  counteracted  some  evil  principle,  and  iielped  to  work 
out  an  antagonizing  principle  of  civilization."''  Another  living 
writer,  evidently  adverse  to  the  Popes,  is  forced  to  express  his 
admiration  of  their  influence  in  the  middle  ages.  "'J'liat  was, 
indeed,  a  splendid  dominion  which  had  been  erected  over  the 
mind  of  man  by  the  (iregories  antl  Innocents!  Its  temporal 
were  always  subordinate  to  its  spiritual  ends.  It  was  a  fyran- 
ill/,  which  repaid,  by  ample  and  substantial  benefits,  its  demands 
upon  the  independence  of  mankind.  It  required  tribute  and 
homage,  but  it  bestowed  order,  civilization,  and,  as  far  as  was 
possible,  in  such  fierce  and  warlike  times,  peace.  It  was  a 
moral  sway,  not,  like  the  temporal  sovereignties  of  the  time, 
one  of  brute  force.  It  had  comparatively  nothing  narrow  or 
personal;  it  united  christkndom  into  a  vast  federal  re- 
piBLic  ;  it  was  constantly  endeavouring  to  advance  the  borders 
of  the  Christian  world — to  reclaim  the  heathen  barbarism  of 
the  north  of  Europe — or  to  repel  the  dangerous  aggressions  of 
M«)hammedanism.     The  Papacy,  during  the  dark   ages,  not- 

•     Foreign  Qunrlcrly  Review,  fur  January,  ir^'M. 
2  C 


32G  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

withstanding  its  presumptuous  and  insulting  domination  over 
the  autliorily  of  kings  and  the  rights  of  nations,  was  a  great  in- 
strument in  the  hand  of  Divine  Providence,  a  counteracting 
principle  to  the  wild  and  disorganizing  barbarism  which  pre- 
vailed throughout  Europe,  a  rallying  point  for  the  moral  and 
intellectual  energies  of  mankind,  when  tliey  should  commence 
the  work  of  reconstructing  society  upon  its  modern  system. 
In  such  lawless  times,  it  was  an  elevating  sight  to  behold  an 
emperor  of  Germany,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power,  arrested  in 
his  attemps  to  crush  tlie  young  freedom  of  Italian  republics  :  a 
warlike,  or  a  pusillanimous  tyrant,  a  Philip  Augustus  of  France, 
or  a  John  of  England,  standing  rebuked  for  their  crimes  and 
oppressions,  at  the  voice  of  a  feeble  old  man  in  a  remote  city, 
witli  scarcely  a  squadron  of  soldiers  at  his  command,  and  with 
hardly  an  uncontested  mile  of  territory."*  Such  is  the  tribute 
which  the  evidence  of  facts  has  extorted  from  men,  by  no  means 
devoid  of  prejudice.  It  is  time  to  do  justice  to  the  great  and 
good  men,  who  laboured  strenuously  and  successfully  for  the 
good  of  society,  as  well  as  for  the  advancement  of  religion. 

The  maxim,  that  not  to  oppose  error  is  to  approve  of  it, 
cannot  be  applied  to  the  acts  of  the  Pontiffs,  to  give  tiiem  a 
weight  paramount  to  a  doctrinal  definition,  for  no  abstract 
maxim  opposed  to  faith  was  broached,  but  a  power  was  exer- 
cised, which  might  be  regarded  as  an  accidental  appendage  of 
their  office,  arising  from  their  relations  to  the  actual  social  sys- 
tem ;  or  they  might  be  considered  as  merely  authoritatively 
declaring  the  cessation  of  obligations,  on  account  of  the  viola- 
tion of  conditions  on  which  they  were  originally  made  to  de- 
pend. The  prevalence  of  the  opinion  for  some  ages  proves 
that  it  must  have  been  sustained  by  something  more  than  the 
mere  example  of  Gregory  VII.  It  must  have  had  its  root  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  relative  obligations  of  the  governors 
and  the  governed,  according  to  the  frame  of  society  which 
then  existed.!     It  must  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  gene- 

*     London  Quarterly,  for  February,  183G. 

\  ^'  If,"  says  Southey,  "  the  papal  power  had  not  been  adapted  to  the 
condition  of  Europe,  it  could  not  have  existed." — See  Fletcher,  p.  157, 
Comparative  View. 


CANON   OK   LATUAN.  327 

ml  feeliniTs  of  right  aiul  justice,  g^rowiiig  out  of  these  sofial  re- 
lations, and  it  cannot  have  heen  that  capricious  and  wai.toii  in- 
terference with  puhlic  rii^ht,  which  some  liave  imntrined.  But, 
common  as  tlie  sentiment  may  have  heen,  and  deep  as  may 
have  been  the  conviction  of  the  Ponlilfs  that  it  was  the  prero- 
gative of  their  station,  cither  as  heads  of  the  social  system,  or 
as  ex|)ouiulers  of  moral  ohliL^alion,  it  never  attained  to  the  au- 
thorilv  of  a  (lo«;ma,  not  even  when  Innocent  III.,  to  justify  his 
interference  in  tlie  quarrel  helween  Philip  Aujiustus  and  Rich- 
ard of  Kn«jland,  maintained,  that  ''  though  he  could  not  judge 
of  the  riirhl  to  a  tief,  yet  it  was  his  province  to  judge  where  sin 
is  committed,  and  to  prevent  puhlic  scandals  ;• — or,  when  the 
advisers  of  Boniface  VIII.  applied  the  same  principle  to  regal 
acts  in  general,  and  contended  that  rafione  peccati,  as  far  as  the 
sinfulness  of  acts  of  regal  authority  might  come  in  question, 
the  king  was  subject  to  the  PontilT.t 

The  third  canon  of  Latran,  which  you  object  in  connexion 
with  this  subject,  is  founded  on  the  feudal  system.  The  vassal 
voweil  homage  to  his  lord,  tlie  baron  to  his  sovereign,  and 
sovercifi^ns  themselves,  in  many  cases,  to  the  Pope,t  the  recog- 
nised head  of  the  whole  system.  When  bandittis  filled  the 
Christian  lands  with  desolation,  pillaging  or  destroying  the 
churches  and  monasteries,  assailing  the  defenceless  virgins  of 
God,  massacring  the  clergy,  measures  were  adopted,  in  the 
absence  of  a  well-constructed  system  of  civil  polity,  to  check 

"  This  is  an  instance  of  the  successful  interposition  of  the  Pope  to 
prevent  war  between  Chriatian  princes.  Pliilip  easily  acquiesc»'d  :  Rich- 
ard yielded  to  the  threat  of  ecclesiastical  severity. —  I'lta  Innoccnlii  III. 
T.  Ill    parti,  p.  503. 

t  "  The  sovereign  Pontiffs,"  says  Count  Lc  Maistre,  "  never  endea- 
voured to  increase  their  temporal  dominions  to  the  prejudice  of  the  law- 
ful princes,  or  to  molest  Uiem  in  the  exercise  of  «over<'ignty,  much  less 
to  usurp  it.  They  never  claimed  but  the  rijfht  to  judge  princes  subject 
to  their  spiritual  authority,  when  these  princes  were  guilty  of  certain 
crimes." — l)u  I'fipr,  Tom.  II.  ch.  viii. 

*  The  Kmperor  Lothaire  III.  consented  to  pay  homage  to  Inrmcent 
11.  for  the  lands  of  Countess  Matilda,  and  made  the  oath  of  fealty. — 
Muratori,  Annili,  an.  1133 


328  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

these  excesses.  The  councils  of  the  Church  were  the  occa- 
sion of  the  union  of  the  emperor  with  kings  and  barons,  as  in 
general  congress  :*  and  whilst  the  decision  of  revealed  doc- 
trines was  left  to  the  bishops,  measures  of  a  mixed  character 
were  adopted  by  the  common  council,  or  with  the  assent  and 
concurrence  of  the  civil  authorities. t  It  was  decreed,  then, 
that  in  case  any  baron,  or  inferior  lord,  should  foster  the  here- 
tics whose  excesses  were  enumerated,:}:  he  should  forfeit  his 
territory,  the  property  of  which  had  been  given  him  by  his 
liege  lord  on  conditions  incompatible  with  such  favour.  The 
declaration  of  forfeiture  was  reserved  to  the  head  of  society,  to 
the  peace  and  welfare  of  which,  the  delinquent  baron  was  re- 
garded as  a  traitor. — All  this,  you  perceive,  has  relation  to 
times  that  are  no  more,  and  that  never  can  return.  It  has  no 
semblance  of  a  definition  of  faith,  but  it  is  a  mere  legislative 
act,  made  in  the  assembly  of  the  states  general  of  Europe. 

The  zeal  of  the  Council  of  Trent  against  duelling,  led  the 
Fathers  to  enact,  that  any  prince  holding  a  city  as  a  fief  frona 
the  Church,  should  forfeit  it,  were  he  to  permit  that  detestable 
practice  in  his  territory.  You  allege  this  as  a  proof  of  the 
temi)oral  claim  being  sustained  by  the  Fathers,  because  you 
cannot  conceive  that  they  could  otherwise  add  a  new  condition 
to  the  tenure,  and  one  so  important,  that  a  breach  of  it  should 

*  "  What  a  parliament  is  in  England,  a  general  synod  was  for  Chris- 
tendom ;  and  so  necessary  was  the  assistance  and  authority  of  the  tem- 
poral powers  conceived  to  be  (since  the  capitularies  of  Charlemagne)  to 
the  making  of  such  a  synod,  that  without  such  legal  strength  it  did  not 
proceed." — J.  B.  Clinch,  in  an  anonymous  Vindication  of  Dr  Troy,  p. 
166. 

t  The  incapacities  and  pains  attached  to  the  Manichean  heresy,  in 
the  Lateran  Council,  are  exactly  the  same  as  in  the  Justinian  Code  ;  and 
they  had  the  temporal  authority,  at  least  650  years  before  they  were  stat- 
ed in  this  council." — Clinch,  ib.  p.  210. 

I  "  Who  exercise  such  horrid  cruelty  upon  Christians,  as  neither  to 
regard  churches,  nor  monasteries,  nor  to  give  quarter  to  widows,  or  to 
orphans,  or  old  men,  or  boys,  or  any  age  or  sex  ;  but  who,  like  heathens, 
destroy  and  desolate  all  before  them." — III  Lat.  Can.  ult. 


SPIRlTrAL  SIiPREMACY.  329 

work  a  forleilure  :  but  you  iniisi  know,  tluit  llio  lemirc  of  all 
fiefs  was  coiuliiioiial,  there  being  in  every  such  leiiure  an  im- 
plied condition,  that  the  interests  of  the  lord  p:iramount  should 
be  sacredly  firuanled.*  'I'he  limitation  placed  by  the  council 
showed  the  caution  of  the  Fathers  not  to  interfere  with  territo- 
ries wherein  no  such  feudal  dcpcndance  existed.  But  why  do  you 
refer  to  an  order  of  society  which  has  passed  away  ?  Chris- 
tendom is  no  longer  a  republic  united  under  one  head:  the 
spiritual  authority  of  the  Pontifl'  is  discarded  by  the  sovereigns, 
whose  predecessors  once  knelt  to  do  him  homage;  the  na- 
tions wiio  formerly  looked  to  his  interposition  as  the  best 
shield  against  oppression,  now  rely  on  other  means  of  protec- 
tion :  the  thunders  of  the  Vatican,  which  at  times  shook 
thrones,  and  struck  down  tyrants,  are  no  longer  heard,  except 
when  faith  is  assailed,  or  the  order  of  the  Church  is  violated: 
and  the  Pontiffs  are  content,  as  in  the  earliest  and  brightest 
days  of  Christianity,  to  send  the  ministers  of  peace  abroad  to 
the  world's  extremity,  preaching  the  everlasting  Gospel.  On 
what  principle,  then,  can  it  be  pretended,  that  a  pledge  of  obe- 
dience to  the  Roman  Ijishop,  as  successor  of  Peter,  and  Vicar 
of  Christ,  implies  any  obligation  inconsistent  with  the  most 
perfect  and  undivided  allegiance  to  the  civil  government  under 
which  we  live  ?  Such  a  construction  of  our  oath  is  not  only 
against  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  words,  but 
their  well  known  and  universal  acceplaiion  :  and  you  are  loo 
well  acquainted  with  ethics  and  jurisprudence  to  snjipose  that 
any  other  construction   is  to  be  put  uj)on  an  oaili,  llian  that  in 

*  "  The  essential  princijilc  of  a  fief,  was  a  mutual  contract  of  sup- 
port and  fidelity.  Whatever  obhgations  it  laid  upon  the  vassal  of  ser- 
vice to  his  lord,  correspondincr  duties  of  protortion  wore  imposed  by  it 
on  the  lord  towards  Ins  vassnl." — lln\\i\iu,Miil(lJr  .iires, cli.  ii.  p.  7"),  note. 

Blackslonc  teaches,  that  every  fii>f  is  subject  to  escheat,  if  the  vassal 
commit  an  enormous  crime  :  because  "  the  tenant,  by  perpetrating  the 
atrocious  crime,  showed  that  he  was  no  lon;;er  to  be  trusted  ns  a  vassal, 
having  forgotten  liis  duty  as  a  hubject,  and,  th'^refore,  forfeited  his  feud, 
which  he  held  under  lh«'  imj)Iied  condition,  that  lie  should  not  be  a  trai- 
tor or  a  felon." — liluclintnnc's  Commcnlaiirs^  1.  ii.  n,  1\\. 

9.      !'• 


330  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

which  it  is  generally  understood,  and  avowedly  taken.  It  is, 
then,  unfair  and  unkind  to  indulge  the  conjecture,  that,  by  any 
possibility  of  construction,  that  oath  could  give  rise  to  any 
obligation  having  relation  to  an  order  of  society  which  for  ages 
has  had  no  existence.  The  reference  which  you  make  to  the 
Council  of  Florence,  in  which  we  are  taught,  that  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff  "  in  the  person  of  blessed  Peter,  full  power  was  given, 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  feeding,  ruling,  and  governing 
the  Universal  Church," — refutes  your  objection  :  for  the  pleni- 
tude of  power  is  there  clearly  determined  by  the  very  terms  to 
regard  the  feeding  with  sound  doctrine,  ruling  with  salutary 
laws,  and  governing  with  just  administration  the  Church  of 
God. — We  care  not  what  sentiment  may  have  prevailed  when 
that  creed  was  set  forth  :  it  is  sufficient,  that  it  was  not  embo- 
died in  the  formulary  itself,  that  it  cannot  in  any  way  deter- 
mine its  meaning.  The  fluctuating  and  jarring  opinions  which 
may  from  time  to  time  prevail  to  a  greater  or  less  extent 
among  schoolmen,  are  entirely  distinct  from  the  defined  dog- 
mas of  Catholic  faith.  When  the  sainted  Pius  V.  and  the 
stern  Sixtus  Quintus  hurled  the  Pontifical  anathema  against 
Elizabeth,  whom  an  act  of  the  English  parliament  had  previ- 
ously declared  illegitimate,  they  did  not  define  any  point  of 
doctrine  :  yet,  though  they  relied  on  the  fact  of  illegitimacy  as 
a  radical  defect  in  her  title  to  the  crown,  they  did  not  obtain 
the  acquiescence  of  the  English  Catholics  on  this  delicate  point 
of  civil  authority.  Not  even  the  iron  rule  of  Elizabeth  herself, 
which  would  have  driven  any  other  class  of  men  to  a  general 
revolt,  was  for  them  a  sufficient  motive  to  hesitate  in  their  al- 
legiance. Since  her  day,  no  instance  can  be  pointed  out  of 
any  attempt  of  a  similar  character. 

You  suppose  that  the  Pontiffs  still  cherish  the  pretension, 
and  you  strengthen  your  suspicion  by  the  measures  which  were 
adopted  to  induce  the  clergy  of  France  to  recede  from  the  po- 
sition which  they  had  taken  in  compliance  with  the  wishes, 
and,  as  you  say,  through  obsequiousness  for  the  judgment  of 
their  royal  master.  Had  they  merely  denied  the  deposing 
power,  your  inference  might  appear  just;  but  you  are  aware^ 


OlMMONS.  331 

ihat  their  lanioiis  derlaraiion  of  1082  contained  three  otlier 
articles  of  a  very  distinct  character.  It  was  sulVirient,  that  any 
one  of  the  articles  was  open  to  discussion,  to  warrant  the  Pon- 
tiff to  treat  with  reserve  a  body  that  seemed  to  anticipate  the 
decision  of  tlic  Church  by  so  solemn  a  declaration,  in  a  matter 
regarding  his  authority.  The  bishops  of  France  actrd,  liien, 
as  became  prelates  careful  to  preserve  invictjate  the  unity  of 
the  Church,  wlien  they  wrote  to  Innocent  XII.,  tlial  they  had 
never  intended  to  make  a  decree  of  faith  by  their  declaration, 
and  assured  him  of  their  profound  su!)niission  to  the  rights  of 
the  Holy  See. 

'riie  four  opinions  given  by  that  profound  jurist,  .Mr  Butler, 
with  regard  to  the  extent  of  Pontifical  prerogative,  only  show 
the  liberty  which  we  enjoy  in  all  thin<rs  where  the  defined  doc- 
trines of  faith  are  left  untouched.  You  '*  cannot  comprehend 
the  unchangeableness  of  a  creed,  the  meaning  of  which  its 
own  best  friends  find  it  so  hard  to  discover."  There  is  no 
difficulty  whatever,  among  Catholics,  on  the  points  which 
Mr  Butler  has  accurately  stated  :  "  It  is  an  article  of  Caliiolic 
faith,  that  the  Pope  has,  by  divine  right,  1.  A  supremacy  of 
rank  ;  2.  A  supremacy  of  jurisdiction  in  the  spiritual  concerns 
of  the  Koman  Catholic  Church  ;  and  3.  The  principal  authority 
in  defining  articles  of  faith."  If  you  cannot  comprehend  the 
unchangeableness  of  a  doctrine  comprising  these  points  clearly 
and  distinctly,  you  have  less  perspicuity  than  your  skilful  at- 
tack on  the  Primacy  would  lead  me  to  suppose.  The  disputes 
excited  on  certain  exercises  of  prerogative,  do  not  render  ques- 
tionable prenigalives  loudly  proclaimed  by  all.  How  many 
political  controversies  agitato  the  republic  with  regard  to  the 
precise  extent  of  the  power  of  llio  Prt^^idciit,  and  yet  the  j)resi- 
dency  itself  is  acknowlcilgcfd  by  all,  and  iis  chief  prerogatives 
are  recognised  with  equal  unanimity. 

You  express  your  opinion,  that  Mr  Biuler,  who  was  so  pro- 
foundly versed  in  legal  science,  must  have  smiled  within  him- 
self, at  the  weakness  of  his  argument,  when  he  urged  the  oath 
established  by  the  British  parliament  for  the  Roman  Catholics, 
and  the  answers  of  live  universities,  and  tlieo|)inion  of  tlie  (Jal- 


332  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

lican  and  English  divines,  with  others,  as  settling- such  a  ques- 
tion." Though  not  a  lawyer,  I  venture,  on  common  sense 
principles,  to  say,  that  Mr  Butler  could,  with  propriety,  urge 
these  proofs  as  abundiuilly  sufficient.  A  code  of  oppressive 
laws  weighed  down  a  devoted  and  faithful  people,  whose  al- 
legiance to  the  government,  proved  by  their  general  conduct, 
was  vexatiously  questioned,  on  the  ground  that  they  cherished 
an  opinion  of  Pontitical  prerogative  adverse  to  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  state.  They  disavowed  it  on  their  oaths. 
This,  surely,  in  itself,  was  settling  the  question,  for  they  were 
known  to  be  so  tenacious  of  the  doctrines  of  religion,  and  so 
full  of  reverence  for  the  sanctity  of  an  oath,  that  they  chose  to 
suffer  the  loss  of  all  their  civil  rights,  rather  than  renounce  the 
faith  of  their  forefathers.  Notliing  more  was  necessary.  Yet 
the  minister  of  state  consults  foieign  universities  in  France, 
Spain,  and  Flanders  ;  countries  distinguished  for  their  devoted 
attachment  to  Catholicism  and  the  Holy  See — unless  you 
please  to  except  France,  on  account  of  some  disputes  about 
the  extent  of  Pontifical  prerogative  and  national  privileges. 
All  concur  in  disavowing  the  opinion,  and  yet  you  smile  at  the 
jurist  who  considers  the  question  settled. — I  submit  the  view 
taken  of  it  by  a  clergyman  of  the  Establishment,  which  fully 
coincides  with  that  of  Mr  Butler  : — "  If  it  be  asserted,"  writes 
the  Rev.  A.  O'Callaghan,  *'  that  such  are  the  claims  of  the  Holy- 
See,  or  the  pretensions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  or  the 
opinions  of  the  Catholic  laity  of  the  present  day — the  imputa- 
tion is  equally  false,  unprincipled  and  insidious.  It  is  re- 
futed by  the  daily  practice  of  every  district  in  the  Catholic 
world  ;  by  the  acts  of  independent  states,  whether  republican 
or  monarchical ;  by  the  solemn  declarations  of  universities, 
canonists,  and  professors  of  divinity  ;  and  by  the  oaths,  either 
sworn  or  tendered,  of  the  whole  Catholic  body.  I  do  not 
envy  the  casuist,  or  divine,  who  circulates  Bibles  without  note 
or  comment,  and  resists  such  evidence  as  this.  I  do  not  envy, 
but  I  am  astonished  at  him."* 

*     Observations  on  the  State  of  Political  and  Religious  Feeling  in 
Ireland.     By  the  Rev.  A.  O'Callaglian.     London,  1827. 


NO   DKFIMTION. 


333 


I  waive,  however,  all  advantage  to  be  derived  from  the  Oalli- 
can  declaration,  or  from  the  answers  of  the  Universities  ot  Sor- 
bonne,  Louvaine,  Doiiay,  Alcalaand  Salamanca,  all  disclaiming 
the  temporal  power,  or  from  the  oaths  of  the  English  and  Irish 
Roman  Catholics,  abjuring  it;  and  I  stand  on  the  broad  ground 
of  Catholic  faith,  and  deny  lliat  we  must  he  charged  with  prin- 
ciples that  are  not  found  in  the  aulhoriz^d  symbols  of  faith,  or 
doctrinal  definitions.  You  assert,  that  "  from  the  days  of  Gre- 
gory VII.  up  to  the  time  of  ISixlus  V.,  the  claim  of  temporal, 
as  well  as  spiritual  supremacy,  was  constantly  proposed  l)y  the 
Popes  as  an  article  of  faith,  acquiesced  in,  both  tacitly  and  pro- 
fessedly, by  the  great  body  of  the  Church."  I  regret  that  you 
should  have  hazariled  an  assertion  which  you  cannot  sustain  by 
Tair  and  honourable  argument.  Why  not  refer  to  some  defini- 
tion or  decree  in  which  this  article  of  faith  was  propounded  ? 
Such  does  not  exist.*  The  Pontifi's  who  entered  into  collision 
with  sovereigns,  issued  no  solemn  definition  of  their  right,  or 
of  its  origin  ;  but  acted  on  principles  which  were  acknowledged, 
and  which  were  intimately  connected  with  the  established  order 
of  society.  The  solemn  deposition  of  the  Emperor  Frederick, 
made  by  Innocent  IV.  in  the  presence  of  the  bishops  assembled 
in  councilt  at  Lyons,  could  not,  from  that  circumstance,  derive 
the  character  of  a  definition,  even  should  you  insist  that  their 
presence  was  equivalent  to  api)robatiou  ;  because  even  a  solemn 
act  of  the  whole  council  is  nut  a  doctrinal  decree,  and  does  not 
necessarily  establish  a  right  or  principle,  though  it  may  form  a 
presumption  in  its  favour.  When  the  Gorman  empire  is  in 
question,  ii  must  be  remembered  that  it  rose  into  existence  in 

*  "  The  (loposinir  power  of  Popes  nrv<'r  was  nn  article  of  faitli,  or  a 
doctrine  of  the  Church  ;  nor  was  it  ever  proposed  as  such,  by  any  coun- 
cil, or  by  the  very  I'opes  ihenisrives  who  exercised  it.  At  present  it  is 
not  njainlained  even  as  an  opinion  by  Ilonian  ('alhf)lic  Iheolosrians." — 
Archbishop  Troy,  of  Dublin,  in  his  Supplcmtnt  to  thr  Pastoral  Instruction 
of  17".>3,  p.  \2y\. 

t  "  Praiaente  Concilio."  In  tlie  sentence  of  deposition  this  style  is 
observed.  In  the  decrees,  jrenerally,  we  read  :  "  Sacroapprobante  Con- 
cilio." 


J 

334  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

the  person  of  CharlerDagne,  under  the  influence,  and  with  the 
sanction,  of  tlie  Pontiff.  I  care  not  to  examine  critically  the 
degree  of  that  influence,  and  the  weight  of  that  sanction  :  it  is 
suflicient  that  the  great  Charles  bowed  to  receive  the  crown 
from  the  Pontiff's  hands,  and  that  the  name  of  emperor  falling 
from  the  lips  of  the  third  Leo,  was  repeated  with  enthusiasm 
by  the  millions  spread  throughout  the  resuscitated  empire.* 
From  that  moment  the  Pontiff  was  looked  up  to  as  the  guar- 
dian of  the  imperial  crown  :  it  was  his  prerogative  to  give  it  to 
the  successful  aspirant,  who  even  journeyed  to  Rome  to  receive 
it.  No  one  received  the  title,  or  exercised  the  authority  of  em- 
peror, until  crowned  by  the  Pontiff  :t  and  the  gates  of  the  Va- 
tican were  thrown  open  for  the  coronation  only  after  he  had 
pledged  himself  that  he  would  sacredly  maintain  the  privileges 
of  the  Church,  as  well  as  the  riglitsof  all  classes  of  his  subjects.^ 
Is  it  then  wonderful  that  the  Pontiff  was  regarded  as  authorized 
to  examine  whether  the  pledges  had  been  redeemed,  and  in  case 
of  tlieir  violation,  to  declare  liie  forfeiture  of  power  held  by  such 
a  tenure  ?  Luden,  a  Protestant,  has  observed  what  is  true  in  a 
sense  still  more  comprehensive  than  he  intended  :  "  The  impe- 
rial crown  obtained  its  real  importance  through  the  Popes." 
"  The  Popes,"  he  says  subsequently,  "  acquired  the  full  con- 
sciousness of  the  power,  which,  in  those  ages  of  vicissitude 
and  tempest,  the  wants  of  men  had  accumulated  upon  their 
See."§  Of  the  exercise  of  that  power  Ancillon,  no  friend  to  the 
Popes,  says:  "In  the  middle  ages,  when  there  was  no  social 
order,  it  was  the  influence  and  power  of  the  Popes  that  per- 
haps alone  saved  Europe  from  the  stale  of  barbarism.  They 
formed  a  supreme  tribunal,  erected  in  the  midst  of  universal 
anarchy ;  and  their  decrees  were,  in  general,  as  respectable  as 
they  were  respected.  It  was  their  power  that  prevented  and 
stayed  the  despotism  of  the  emperors  ;  that  replaced  the  want 

*     Muratori,  Annali,  Tom.  X.  an.  800. 

t     Ibid.  Tom.  X.  an.  876,  p.  441.     An.  879,  p.  15.     An.  880,  p.  31. 
An.  901,  p.  229.    An.  1027,  p.  23. 

t     Ibid.  An.  91G,  p.  299.     An.  1014,  p.  395.     An.  1109,  p.  107. 
§     Geschicte  des  Teutschen  Volkes,  von  Ueinrich  Luden. 


FALSK  coNSTiirc  ri(»\.  335 

of  eqiiilibrinin,  ami  iliniinislitd  ilu;  iiiconveiiienct's  of  ilic  Oudal 
system. • 

You  put  it  lo  our  own  good  sense  and  candour  to  say,  wliat 
the  Pope  hinjseir  wouUl  he  likely  lo  pronounce,  if  the  question 
of  his  temporal  j)o\ver  were  submitted  lo  him,  and  you  j^ive 
several  reasons  why  he  should  put  such  a  construciion  on  the 
delinilion  of  Florence,  as  lo  assert  his  claim  lo  temporal  autho- 
rity. Cnminon  sense  forhids  it:  the  jiropriety  of  words  would 
be  manifesily  violated,  anil  the  faUe  and  forced  construction 
would  he  glaring.  It  is  not  in  this  way  that  the  Apostolic  See 
expounds  the  detinitions  of  councils,  or  sustains  its  privileges. 
There  is  not  the  ni«)st  indirect  reference  lo  such  a  power  in  the 
Florentine  decree;  and  the  Fathers  cannot  he  thought  lo  have 
in  any  way  sanctioned  an  opinion  of  which  they  look  not  the 
slightest  notice. 

I  am  sorry  that  such  a  vain  hypolliesis  has  led  you  to  pen 
the  concluding  sentence  :  "  And,  therefore,  I  am  compelled  lo 
conclude,  that  the  oath  to  render  true  obedience  to  your  su- 
preme Poniiir,  takes  high  precedence  of  every  human  obliga- 
tion, as  your  system  now  stands  ;  and  that  there  is  as  yet  no 
sufficient  warrant  for  any  other  dcfinilion  of  Papal  power,  than 
that  which  has  been  inscribed  upon  the  history  of  nations,  in 
characters  of  blood.'''  What,  sir,  were  your  repeated  profess- 
ions of  kindness  to  conduct  us  to  this  conclusion  I  Was  it  your 
intention,  when  you  had  laboured  in  vain  to  disturb  our  faith 
in  the  divine  insiituli«)n  of  the  Primacy,  to  throw  susj)icion  on 
our  allegiance  and  devoted  attachment  lo  tiie  government  under 
which  we  live  ?  Did  you  design  to  force  on  us  a  false  interpre- 
tation of  our  creed,  and  thence  to  infer  that  you  louml  no  war- 
rant for  any  olher  definition  of  the  spiritual  power  which  we 

"  Ancillon,  quoted  by  Fletcher,  (,'omi»aralivo  View,  p  l")?,  American 
edition.  *'  Feu«lah«rn  was  the  worst  foe  to  Horial  ord«T,  becauhc  it  was 
equally  opposed  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  monarch,  and  the  liberty  of  the 
people.  Could  it  have  held  its  position,  Kurope  must  have  sunk  into 
barbarism;  but  it  had  to  oppobc  a  powerful  principle — the  inthience  of 
the  Church.  In  the  eleventh  cenluiy,  the  i'apacy  fougiil  the  battle  of 
freedom  and  civilization." — Foreign  (Quartet hj ,  fur  January,  \y^'MV 


336  TEMPORAL  POWER. 

reverence  than  one  inscribed  in  characters  of  blood  ?  You 
must  read  history  anew  if  you  have  so  far  mistaken  its  bear- 
ings. You  will  find  the  Papal  power  exerted  in  the  person  of 
Clement  to  restore  unity  where  it  had  been  disturbed  by  the 
violence  of  faction,  and  from  that  period  down  to  this,  employ- 
ed for  the  same  purpose,  so  worthy  of  the  representative  on 
earth  of  the  meek  Saviour  of  men.  You  will  find  its  history, 
for  the  first  three  ages,  marked  only  with  the  blood  of  the  mar- 
tyred Pontiffs.  You  will  see  the  ancient  faith  at  all  limes 
strenuously  defended  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  and  every  error, 
whether  it  proceed  from  a  bishop  of  Constantinople,  or  a  pa- 
triarch at  Antioch,  or  Alexandria,  authoritatively  condemned. 
You  will  see  the  missionaries  of  Rome  going  to  the  world's 
extremities  to  announce  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation,  with  the 
sacrifice  of  all  life's  pleasures,  and  at  the  peril  of  torments  and 
death.  If  we  appreciate  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, we  must  acknowledge  that  to  Rome,  under  heaven,  all  of 
us  are  originally  indebted  for  them.  And  even  that  power 
which  associated  itself  with  the  Primacy  in  the  middle  ages 
was  eminently  beneficent.*  History  shows  that  it  was  inter- 
posed, generally,  to  correct  vice,  to  shield  the  weak,  to  pre- 
vent civil  war  and  anarchy.  The  legates  of  the  Pontiff  were 
angels  of  peace,  entreating  the  rival  monarchs  to  be  recon- 
ciled : — pleading  with  the  haughty  sovereign  in  favour  of  an 
oppressed  people.  The  blood  that  occasionally  flowed  in  the 
contests  that  followed  the  exercise  of  Pontifical  authority, 
would  have  been  shed,  in  many  instances,  had  no  such  inter- 
position taken  place :  and  if  sometimes  it  has  flowed  at  the 
bidding  of  the  Pontiff,  it  was  mostly  when  the  helpless- 
ness of  female  virtue  was  to  be  defended  against  the  aggression 


*  Southey  says  "  the  Papacy  was  morally  and  intellectually  the 
conservative  power  of  Christendom.  Politically,  too,  it  was  the  saviour 
of  Europe."  Another  modern  writer  says:  "The  Papal  power  was 
for  ages  the  great  bulwark  of  order  amid  the  turbulence  of  the  semi- 
civilized  people  of  Europe." — American  Encyclopedia,  Article,  Gregorrj 
Vll. 


t 


nr.NF.FiciAL  REsri.Ts.  337 


of  marauders,  or  llie  cause  of  jtislice  and  humanity  was  to  be 
sustained.  If,  in  the  complicated  relations  of  the  Popes,  and 
the  general  disorganization  of  society,  excesses  sometimes  hap- 
pened, over  which  humanity  weeps,  it  should  still  be  remem- 
bered that  the  power  of  the  ('hurch,  in  the  main,  *'  was  a 
blessing  which  God  bestowed  upon  the  middle  ages — where 
every  thing  would  have  been  darkness,  and  bloodshed,  and 
disorder — that  alone  guarded  and  perpetuated  order,  and  jus- 
lice,  and  light."* 

•     Foreign  Quarterly,  for  April.  183G. — History  of  the  Franks. 


2d 


LETTER   XXVIII. 


MODE  OF  ELECTION. 


Right  Reverend  Sir  : 

In  your  chapter  on  the  mode  of  electing  the  Pope,  and  llie 
ceremonies  of  his  installation,  you  say  :  "  That  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  as  well  as  all  other  bishops,  was  elected,  in  primitive 
times,  by  the  clergy  of  his  own  city  and  diocess,  with  the  con- 
curring suffrages  of  the  people,  is  a  fact  so  manifest,  through- 
out the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  that  it  cannot  be,  and  never 
has  been,  questioned  by  any."  Although  the  share  which  each 
class  had,  at  different  times,  in  these  elections,  may,  I  believe, 
be  a  fair  matter  of  inquiry,  I  am  unwilling  to  embarrass  our 
discussion  by  entering  into  it  at  present.  A  similar  feeling 
prompts  me  to  pass  over  your  assertion,  "  that  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  Christianity  in  the  Roman  empire,  the  sovereigns 
exercised  the  right  of  confirming  the  election  of  the  Pope,  and 
that,  after  much  contest  upon  the  subject,  it  was  left  to  the 
cardinals,  in  the  eleventh  century,  to  elect  the  Popes  without 
any  interference  on  the  part  of  emperor,  senate,  or  people,  and 
such  has  been  the  course  pursued  from  that  period  to  t!ie  pre- 
sent day."  Whatever  inaccuracy  may  be  in  this  general  state- 
ment, does  not  demand  any  special  correction  at  this  time. 

The  measures  now  adopted  to  secure  the  tranquillity  and 
freedom  of  the  electors,  and  to  preserve  them  from  all  bias,  are 
mentioned  by  you,  and  your  surprise  at  the  adoption  of  such  a 
system,  *'  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  result  which  is  to  be 
attributed  to  the  divine  direction,"  is,  to  me,  a  subject  of  aston- 
ishment.    Surely,  our  reliance  on  God  would  assume  the  clia- 


MODIFICATIONS.  33U 

racier  of  presumption,  were  we  to  neglect  the  precautions  which 
prudence  prescribes  for  ohiaininjr  a  happy  result.  Your  own 
bisliop  IJuU  has  well  said  :  *♦  The  divine  assistance  and  hu- 
man industry  always  went  together  hand  in  hand,  and  an  ana- 
thema is  due  to  that  doctrine  that  separates  and  divides  them."* 
Since,  tiien,  public  elections  were  sonictinjcs  attended  with 
disorder  and  tumult,  through  the  intrigr.es  and  violence  of  the 
factious  and  anibiiious,  you  should  admire  the  retirement  of  the 
conclave,  where  all  is  conducted  in  the  utmost  tranquillity. 
The  cardinals  are  the  chief  of  the  clergy  of  the  I^>man  (.'hurch, 
having  the  titles  and  priiicipnl  charge  of  the  ancient  churches 
of  the  city,  with  a  few  of  the  neighbourinL'  bisliops,  who  were 
wont  to  intervene  in  tlie  election  of  the  Bishop  of  Kome.  They, 
consequently,  exhibit  the  ancient  form  of  election,  though, 
with  some  modification,  found  necessary  by  the  change  of  cir- 
cumstances. Besides  the  precautions  taken  to  prevent  external 
influence,  they  daily  invoke  the  Holy  Ghost  during  the  con- 
clave, at  a  solemn  mass,  celebrated  for  that  purpose,  and  they 
swear  aloud,  that  their  vote,  which  they  place  in  the  sa- 
cred chalice,  on  the  holy  altar,  is  accordintr  to  their  conscien- 
tious judgment :  "1  call  to  witness  Chris^t  the  TiOrd,  who  is  to 
judge  me,  that  I  choose  llie  person  who,  before  (lod,  I  judge 
ought  to  be  elected. "t  However  1  may  admire  the  simplicity 
of  the  primitive  ages,  I  cannot  but  think  that  the  mode  of  elec- 
tion now  in  use  is  better  guarded  against  undue  influence  and 
other  disorders.  You  style  this  mode  tlic  most  extraordinary 
known  in  the  history  of  man,  but  it  is  attended  with  nothing  to 
give  it  this  extraordinary  character,  save  its  sacred  solemnity 
and  inviolate  liberty.  The  term  election  hy  acrntimj,  which 
you  use,  might  be  mistaken  by  your  readers  for  some  mysterious 
mode,  that  gave  this  extraordinary  character  ;  and  though  it 
literally  corresponds  to  the  Latin  term,  you  might  translate  it 


•  Bishop  Bull's  Sorm  ,  "  lltiman  Mnitis  I'srfu!  to  Inspirrd  Persons^' 
Vol.  I.,  p.  2«^2,  Oxford  rdil.,  IHIT.. 

t  See  Bull  of  Gregory  XV.,  /Klrrni  TatriH  Kilius.an.  li.'JI,  Tom.  Ill 
Bullarii,  p.  :ilM'),  edit.  Lugd.,  an    l<-!''i 


340  MODE  OF   ELECTION. 

*'  vole  by  ballot,"  as  it  really  means,  which  would  not  be  very 
extraordinary  to  your  readers.  Two-thirds  of  the  electors 
must  concur  in  a  choice  ;  and  when,  on  balloting,  this  is  found 
not  to  be  the  case,  a  new  balloting  occurs,  unless  some  accede 
to  a  candidate,  and  thereby  give  iiim  the  necessary  majority. 
The  tickets  o{  accession  are  given  in  with  the  same  caution  as 
in  balloting,  to  secure  the  electors  from  the  influence  of  fear, 
or  favour.  No  cardinal  can,  in  any  case,  vote  for  himself,  and 
his  vote  is  never,  through  compliment,  counted  in  his  favour. 
The  ceremonies  which  follow  tiie  election,  are  indeed  mag- 
nificent— indicative  of  profound  veneration  for  him  who,  by  the 
judgment  of  God,  if  I  may  borrow  the  language  of  Cyprian,  is 
to  occupy  the  chair  of  Peter.  You  surely  cannot  have  any 
serious  difficulty  about  the  term  adoration^  used  in  the  cere- 
monial, as  it  originally  signifies  respect  or  reverence,  and  is  not 
at  all  intended  here  to  signify  divine  homage.  The  genuflex- 
ions— kissing  of  the  feet  and  hands — are  ceremonies  of  orien- 
tal origin,  used,  in  primitive  times,  to  all  bishops.  The  eleva- 
tion of  the  newly  elected  Pope  on  the  altar,  is  intended  to 
express  that  he  is  to  be  the  special  representative  and  vicege- 
rent of  Christ.  The  tiara  which  is  placed  upon  his  head,  is  an 
ornament  of  great  value,  but  designed  to  represent  a  far  more 
precious  crown,  that  awaits  him,  if  he  prove  a  faithful  steward 
of  his  Divine  Master.  The  epithet  "  Father  of  princes  and  of 
kings,"  designates  his  high  authority  in  the  Church  of  God,  in 
which  princes  and  kings  are  undistinguished  from  the  lowliest 
of  their  subjects  ;  and  he  is  styled  *'  Ruler  of  the  world,"  in 
the  same  sense  as  Peter  is  said,  by  Chrysostom,  to  have  been 
placed  over  the  entire  world.  It  may  be,  that  the  magnificence 
of  this  ceremonial  ill  accords  with  modern  feeling  and  senti- 
ment ;  but  it  is  enough  that  its  object  is  to  impress  our  minds 
with  veneration  for  tlie  vicegerent  of  Christ,  and  that  it  has 
precedents  in  antiquity,  and  derives  authority  from  the  splendid 
ritual  which  God  himself  prescribed  to  the  ancient  priesthood. 
Why  should  we  be  fastidious  about  vesture,  or  marks  of  re- 
spect, if  we  revere  in  the  Pontiff  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ, 


MISTAKES.  341 

the  High  Priest  of  the  new  covenant,  whose  miiiisiry  he  exer- 
cises i 

In  endeavouring  to  prove  that  the  present  mode  of  election 
is  opposed  to  the  Nicene  canon,  which,  however,  did  not  at  all 
regard  the  IJishop  of  Home,  but  the  general  j)rovincial  ordina- 
tions, you  have  fallen  into  several  mistakes.  You  slate  that  the 
cardinal  electors  "  are  bishops  already,  although  only  titular 
bishops,  consecrated  by  the  Pope,  for  some  far  distant  coun- 
try, without  the  least  intention  of  ever  beholding  their  nominal 
dioceses."  Allow  me  to  set  you  rigiil.  Of  the  cardinals,  six 
only  are  cardinal  bishops,  and  these  of  the  neighbouring  Sees  of 
Oslia,  Porto,  Alhano,  Prentste,  Sabine,  and  Frescati.  Some 
belonging  to  the  order  of  cardinal  j)riests  are  bishops,  having 
Sees  in  Italy,  France,  Spain,  or  oilier  countries,  where  ihey 
reside,  governing  their  dioce.ses,  unless  the  Pontiff,  for  the 
general  interests  of  the  Church,  calls  them  to  assist  in  his  coun- 
cils. Of  this  class  was  the  late  Archbishop  of  Bourdeaux, 
whose  memory  is  cherished  with  such  veneration  throughout 
this  country,  no  less  than  in  the  See  where  he  closed  his  Apos- 
tolic ministry.  Fourteen  are  cardinal  deacons  ;  so  that  of  the 
seventy  who  compose  the  council  of  the  Pope,  like  the  elders 
who  aided  Moses  in  the  government  of  the  people,  only  six 
belong  to  the  order  of  cardinal  bishops,  and  few,  if  any,  are 
of  the  class  which  you  have  described.  It  is  wisdom  to  be 
cautious  in  making  assertions,  and  not  easily  to  censure  what, 
when  well  understood,  might  be  found  worthy  of  approbation. 
The  present  mode  of  electing  the  PontiO'  is  proved,  by  the 
experience  of  ages,  to  be  the  best  calculated  to  secure  the 
choice  of  a  worthy  successor  to  Peter,  by  leaving  the  electors 
free  from  secular  influence,  whether  it  be  imj)erial  or  regal 
controul,  or  popular  violence.  It  may  be  popular  to  extol  an- 
cient forms  of  election,  when  the  ri/^ht  of  suffrage  was  more 
extensive,  but  it  would  be  fair  to  consider  the  tragic  scenes 
which  sometimes  disgraced  public  election.^,  and  which  were 
the  occasion  of  the  abridgment  of  lay,  or  clerical  privileges. 
Chrysosiom  observed,  that  Peter  could  himself  have  chosen  a 

2   D» 


342  MODE  OF  ELECTION. 

successor  to  the  fallen  Apostle,  without  suffering  any  nomina- 
tion to  be  made  by  others,  and  that,  in  granting  leave  to  the 
faithful  to  propose  candidates,  he  limited  their  choice  to  a  cer- 
tain class  ;  a  power  which  his  successors  used,  in  the  regula- 
tions from  time  to  time  made  for  the  proper  management  of 
Pontifical  elections. 


LETTER  XXIX. 


CONCLUSION. 


Right  Reverknd  Sir: 

You  wish  to  be  permitted  to  hope,  that  tlie  chiiins  of  Ponli- 
lical  supremacy  will  soon  be  abandoned  :  it  might  be  cruel  to 
preclude  iiope,  if  it  were  not  criminal  to  foster  delusion.  The 
organization  of  the  Church,  such  as  it  was  framed  by  its 
founder,  must  remain  unclianged  until  the  consummation  of  the 
world  ;  and  the  foundation  must  continue,  whilst  the  edifice 
stands — the  monument  of  his  power  and  wisdom.  Every  plant 
that  the  Father  halh  not  planted,  will  be  rooted  up;  every 
house,  built  on  the  sandy  foundation  cf  iiuman  wisdom,  shall 
fall  in  ruins  ;  every  kingdom  divided  against  itself  shall  be 
brouglit  to  desolation:  but  that  tree  of  life  which  the  right 
hand  of  Cod  hath  planted,  will  bloom,  in  undecaying  verdure 
and  fruitfulness — against  that  house  which  is  founded  on  a  rock, 
the  winds  and  waves  dash  in  vain — against  the  kingdoan  go- 
verned by  Peter,  who  received  the  keys  from  Christ — the  gates 
of  hell  cannot  prevail.  Unity  is  its  strength,  and  the  See  of 
Peter  is  the  principle  of  that  imity. 

You  claim  to  belong  to  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  but  your 
claim  is  necessarily  vain,  as  long  as  you  reject  that  unity  which 
is  her  vital  principle,  and  refuse  to  harujonize,  in  faith,  with 
that  Church  "  with  \shich,"  now,  as  in  the  days  of  Irenacus,  "on 
account  of  iicr  j)owerful  principality,  all  must  agree."  To  be 
in  the  communion  with  ihe  Catholic  Cjiurch,  you  must,  as 
('yj)rian  and  Auibiose,  Augusiin  and  Ojitalus  have  tauiiht  us, 
be  in  the  coinmunion  of  the  Hishop  of  Rome.  In  the  symbol 
of  the  Ai)Ostles,  you  profess  to  "believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic 


344  CONCLUSION. 

Church  ;"  but  as  long  as  you  refuse  to  hear  the  voice  of  that 
Shepherd,  to  whose  care  Christ  comnutted  his  lambs  and  sheep, 
you  have  no  claim  to  be  of  his  flock.  The  Arians  repeated,  with- 
out difficulty,  the  Apostolic  symbol,  and  would  have  been  well 
satisfied  if  no  other  test  of  their  faith  were  exacted,  than  to 
believe  *'  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  the  only  Son  of  God  the 
Father."  You  say  that  "  you  profess  liie  faith  held  by  the 
primitive  Church  ;  taught  by  the  early  Fathers  ;  sanctioned  by 
the  first  four  General  Councils."  If  you  profess  their  faith 
in  regard  to  the  mysteries  which  they  protected  against  the 
temerity  of  man,  imitate,  I  pray  you,  their  profound  veneration 
for  the  successor  of  Peter.  You  have  heard  the  enthusiastic 
acclamations  of  the  Fathers  of  Ephesus,  when  the  letter  of 
Pope  Celestine  was  read  :  ^'  This  is  a  just  judgment — to  Ce- 
lestine,  the  guardian  of  the  faith — to  Celestine,  who  harmo- 
nizes with  the  synod — to  Celestine,  the  whole  synod  returns 
thanks.  There  is  one  Celestine — one  Cyril — the  faith  of  the 
synod  is  one — the  faith  of  the  world  is  one."*  On  the  reading 
of  the  doctrinal  letter  of  Leo,  at  Chalcedon,  you  have  heard 
the  Fathers  exclaim  :  "  This  is  the  faith  of  the  Fathers — this 
is  the  faith  of  the  Apostles.  All  of  us  have  this  belief — the 
orthodox  believe  this.  Anathema  to  him  who  does  not  believe 
this.  PETER  HAS  SPOKEN  BY  LEO."t  With  what 
appearance  of  consistency  can  you  claim  communion  with  those 
venerable  men,  whilst  you  reject  that  authority  under  whose 
guidance  they  proceeded,  in  their  most  solemn  acts  ?  What 
avails  it  to  receive  their  definitions  of  the  dogmas  then  contro- 
verted, if  you  listen  not,  as  they  did,  to  him  who  "  is  estab- 
lished the  interpreter  for  all  of  the  voice  of  Peter  the  Apostle  ?":{: 
Would  not  the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon,  could  they  re-appear  on 
earth,  rebuke  you  for  what,  in  their  strong  language,  they 
would  call  "  frenzy  against  him  to  whom  the  care  of  the  vine- 
yard was  entrusted  by  the  Saviour  ?"§ 

*     Act.  IL,  Cone.  Eph.,  Tom.  I.,  Coll.  Hard.,  Col.  1472. 
t     Cone.  Chalc.,  Act.  II.,  Tom.  II.,  Coll.  Hard.,  Col.  505. 
t     Synodical  Letter  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  to  Leo,  Tom.  II. ,  p. 
655,  Coll.  Harduin.  §     Ibid. 


EXCLUSIVE  SALVATION.  Jii) 

Leaving  you  to  answer  lliese  qucslions,  1  proceed  to  reply 
to  yours.  *' Why  do  you  insist  that  (christians,  who  hold  the 
same  ancient  creed,  are  not  equally  belonging  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  because  they  are  alienated  from  each  other  on  minor 
points  of  polity  or  doctrine  ?"  Were  one  question  to  be  an- 
swered by  another,  I  would  ask  you  why  you  would  exclude  a 
Unitarian  from  the  Catholic  (.'hurch,  who  would  repeat  the 
Apostolic  creed  in  his  own  sense  and  meaning  t  But  I  reply, 
more  directly,  that  we  exclude  none  from  the  Catholiir  Church 
for  mere  dillerence  on  minor  points  of  polity;  but  for  dissent 
from  revealed  doctrines,  solemidy  defined  by  the  highest  doc- 
trinal tribunal  in  the  ('hurch,  or  for  the  violation  of  unity.  Our 
authority  for  this  exclusiveness  is  no  less  than  that  of  the  di- 
vine P^ounder  of  the  Church,  who  ordained  that  the  refractory 
against  her  decree,  even  in  a  matter  of  much  less  importance, 
should  be  regarded  as  the  heathen  and  the  publican.  A\'hen 
at  the  end  of  the  profession  of  faith  we  declare  that  out  of  this 
Catholic  faith  none  can  be  saved,  we  certainly  do  not  include  a 
belief  in  the  deposing  power ;  and  you  are  sufliciently  acquainted 
with  our  principles  to  know,  that  we  do  not,  thereby,  take 
upon  us  to  anticipate  the  divine  judgment,  in  regard  to  such  as, 
through  misfortune,  rather  than  by  their  own  fault,  might  be 
ignorant  of  some  article  expressed  in  that  formidary.^  You 
know,  also,  in  what  terms  Cyprian,  Augustin,  (Jptalus,  and 
the  Fathers  generally,  urge  the  necessity  of  unity  ;  and  how 
unreservedly  they  declare  that  martyrdom  itself  cannot  avail, 
where  unity  is  violated.     You  can,  then,  easily  conceive  why 

"  Episcopalian  divines  arc  equally  vehement  in  a.sscrtinjj  the  neces- 
sity of  belonging  to  the  Catholic  Church,  though  they  are  liberal  en*)Ujrh 
to  embrace  a  strange  amalgamation  of  sects,  under  this  term.  Bishop 
Beveridge,  in  his  sermon  on  "  Salvation  in  the  Church  only,"  says  . 
"  Seeing,  therefore,  that  the  Ilf)ly  Ghost  hath  so  positively  affirmed  that 
the  Lord  added  to  the  Church  xucli  as  should  be  saved,  and  likewise 
hath  given  us  such  extraordinary  instances  of  it  ;  it  is  no  wonder  that 
the  F'alhers  so  frequently  assert  that  there  is  no  salvation  to  he  liud  out 
of  Christ's  Holy  C^atholic  Church  ;  but  that  whosoever  would  l)e  a  mem- 
b<'r  of  ilu'  Church  triumphant  in  heaven,  must  first  be  a  member  of  the 
Church  licrc  iinlitant  on  earlh.  " — I'.  77,  \ Ol.  I. 


346  CONCLUSION. 

we  attuch  so  much  importance  to  obedience  to  its  guardian. 
There  is  one  faith,  as  there  is  one  Lord  ;  and  that  faith  re- 
gards all  things,  whatsoever  Christ  teaches  by  the  Apostolic 
ministry,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world.  The  images 
which  you  use  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  Church,  are  not 
apposite  when  applied  to  dissentient  sects:  "Does  a  body 
cease  to  be  united  to  its  head,  because  one  member  becomes 
torpid,  and  another  deformed,  and  a  third  spasmodic  ?  Does  a 
fold  cease  to  be  one,  because  the  rams  of  the  flock  are  accus- 
tomed to  contend,  instead  of  feeding  side  by  side  in  peace? 
Does  a  family  cease  to  be  one,  because  the  nearest  relations 
have  quarrelled  ?  Does  a  crew  cease  to  be  one,  because  they 
refuse  to  eat  together  ?  Does  a  nation  cease  to  be  one,  because 
factions  and  party-spirit  divide  the  people?" — I  have  learned 
from  the  Divine  Scriptures,  that  obstinate  error  against  faith, 
is  the  cancer  that  spreadeth,*  and  the  limb  must  be  amputated.t 
The  member  that  communicates  not  with  the  head,  no  longer 
appertains  to  the  body.  The  child  who  has  abjured  parental 
authority,  is  not  regarded  as  of  his  father's  household.  Mu- 
tinous sailors,  who  will  not  acknowledge  the  captain,  cannot 
be  any  longer  regarded  as  the  crew  of  the  vessel.  A  portion 
of  the  people  that  refuses  to  recognise,  in  any  way,  the  gene- 
ral government,  ceases  to  belong  to  the  nation.  Suppose  that 
any  stale  of  the  Union  should  utterly  discard  the  national  insti- 
tutions, and  not  only  assert  its  own  sovereignty  and  independ- 
ence, but  refuse  to  pay  any  regard  to  the  enactments  of  con- 
gress, or  the  constitutional  acts  of  the  President ;  could  any  man 
say  that  a  state  thus  asserting  and  maintaining  its  absolute 
independence,  would  still  continue  to  be  one  of  the  United 
States?  The  bickerings  of  the  schoolmen,  national  antipa- 
thies, the  rivalries  of  individuals,  and  all  the  miseries  of  weak 
humanity,  within  the  Church,  do  not  cause  separation ;  but  the 
moment  a  proscribed  error  in  doctrine  is  publicly  avowed,  or 
the  governing  authority  constituted  by  (^hrist  is  cast  off,  the 
individual  gains   independence   at  the  cost  of  the  sacrifice  of 

*     2  Tim.,  H.  17.  t     Gal.  V.  12. 


CASES  NOT  IN   POINT.  347 

communion  with  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  In  priilo  and 
folly  he  has  left  the  house  of  his  I'aiher,  and  cann<»l  enjoy  the 
privileges  of  a  son,  until  he  return  humble*!  and  uuhnjissive  : 
♦*  He  cannot,"  says  Sl(Jyprian,  '♦  have  (iod  for  his  father,  wlio 
has  not  the  Cliurch  for  his  mother. "•  Your  cases  are  not  in 
point,  ^^'hen  Paul  and  Harnahas  separated,  neither  of  them  dis- 
agreed in  doctrine,  or  hroke  the  bonds  of  Cjiurch  communion, 
but  merely  difVered  in  rej^ard  to  the  indulijence  to  be  exercised 
towards  one,  w.hose  former  conduct  seemed  to  demand  severity. 
If  Victor  actually  executed  his  threat  to  cut  oif  the  Asiatic 
churches  from  the  communion  of  tiie  ('.iih(dic  Church,  which 
may  be  questit)ned,  they  nuisl  have  remained  cut  oH",  until  the 
remiMistrances  of  Irenicus  and  other  j)rel:ites  induced  him  to 
revoke  the  measure.  Slej)lien  never  excommunicated  (Jypri- 
an,  but  forbad  any  change  in  the  ancient  usage;  and  though  he 
thought  that  those  who  might  persevere  in  the  innovation 
should  be  separated  from  the  communion  of  the  Catholic 
Cliurch,  peace,  liowever,  prevailed  in  his  heart,  and  in  the 
hearts  of  the  dissentient,  that  no  evil  of  schisui  should  arise 
between  themt 

You  ask,  secondly  :  Why  do  we  "  aver,  that  the  creed  of  the 
j)rimiiive  Church  Catholic  warrants  you  in  placing  the  supre- 
macy of  the  I'ope  among  the  articles  of  fiith  ?"  Becatise  the 
Apostolic  creed  speaks  of  only  one  "  Holy  Catholic  Church," 
and  that  of  Nice  and  Constantinople  explains  it  as  •*  one 
Holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  The  Church  could 
not  be  one,  without  a  princij)Ie  or  centre  of  unity,  which  is 
only  found  in  the  government  of  the  one  Pastor  of  the  entire 
fold:  it  couhl  not  be  Apostolic,  unless  the  succession  of  its 
ministry  were  preserved  uninlerru()tedly  fmm  the  days  of  ihr 
Apostles;  and  this  succ(>s8ion  is  only  found  in  the  See  of 
Rome,  and   in   the  chun-hes  in   i'onnnunion  with    it.  •;     Obedi- 

•     S.  ('yi>ri;in,  l)v  Unit    K<c\.,  p.  H.J,  i  dil.  Haail. 

t     S.  Aug.  I.  .'>.  do  Bapt.  contra.  Donal.  r.  2r>. 

t  "  \Ve  do  not  deny  that  the  ApoNtolicai  succroHion  hntii  l»»  <  n  r<ui- 
tinned  in  the  Cliurcii  of  Rome." — HiKJiop  Biveiidge  Seriii.  I.  Christ's 
Presence  tnlh  his  .Minislcr.n,  p.  21,  Vol.  I. 


348  CONCLUSION. 

ence    to    the   Bishop   of  Rome,  as    Bishop  of  the    Catholic 
Church,  was  acknowledged  as  necessary  in  the  days  of  Cor- 
nelius and  of  Cyprian  ;  and  whatever  forbearance  was  practis- 
ed in  regard  to  those,  who,  admitting  the  authority,  remon- 
strated against  some  acts  of  its  exercise,  those  who  obstinately 
rejected  the  authority  itself,  were  considered  aliens  from  the 
Church,  and  from  Christ.     Thus,  Cyprian  argues  from  the 
words  of  Christ  to  Peter,  that  tliough  the  Apostles  were  equal 
to  him  in  the  honour  and  power  of  the  Apostolate,  "  Christ,  by 
his  authority,  ordained  the  origin  of  the  same  unity,  that  the 
Church  may  be  shown  to  be  one — the  commencement  comes 
from  unity,  that  the  Church  may  be  shown  to  be  one."    Hence 
he  speaks  ofNovatius  as  an  alien  from  the  Church,  because  not 
subject  to  the  authority  of  Cornelius,  its  lawful  Bishop,  and  his 
followers  as  persons  separated  from  the  Church  ;  and  he  treats  all 
who  are  not  under  one  Bishop,  as  aliens  from  her  communion. 
His  words  are  emphatically  strong: — "By  the  mystery  of  his 
[seamless)  garment,  Christ  declared  the  unity  of  the  Church 
Who,  then,  is  so  wicked  and  perfidious — who  so  maddened  by 
the  rage  of  discord,  as  to  imagine,  that  the  unity  of  God  can 
be  rent,  or  as  to  dare  rend  it — the  garment  of  the  Lord — the 
Church  of  Christ?     He,  himself,  warns  us  in  his  Gospel,  and 
teaches  us,  saying :  '  There  shall  be  one  flock,  and  one  Shep- 
herd.'   And  does  any  one  think,  that  there  can  be  in  one  place 
either  many  shepherds   or  several  flocks  ?  .  .  .  .  What  peace, 
therefore,  do  the  enemies  of  the  bretliren  promise  themselves? 
what  sacrifices  do  the  rivals  of  tlie   priests  believe  that  they 
celebrate?     When   they  are   assembled,   do   they  think   that 
Clirist  is  with   them,  who  are  gathered  together  out  of  the 
Church?     Even  should  such  persons  be  slain  for  the  name  of 
Christ,  that  stain  is  not  washed  away  by  blood.     The  inexpi- 
able  and  heinous  crime  of  discord  is  not  cleansed  by  suff'er- 
ing.     He  who  is  not  in  the  Church,  cannot  be  a  martyr."* 
Take  tliese  words,  and  reconcile  them  with  the  theory  which 
would  make  a  Catholic  and  Episcopalian  bishop  in  the  one  city, 

*     S.  Cyprian  de  Unit.,  p.  1G7  et  168. 


8T  OPTATUS.  34W 

with  llioir  separate  flocks,  portions  of  the  C'atholie  Clnin  !»  ; 
and  woiikl  prei^eiU  so  many  sects  wiilioul  any  connecting  link, 
without  any  common  authority  to  himl  them  together,  as  com- 
posing the  one  foKl  of  the  one  Shepherd.  Jerome  surely  be- 
lieved with  us,  tliat  communion  with  the  successor  of  Peter 
was  esseniial,  when  he  adilressed  Damasus,  assuring  him  that  lie 
knew  that  the  Church  was  founded  on  that  rock — th^t  whoso- 
ever is  out  of  it,  is  like  those  out  of  the  ark  when  the  flood 
came — ihat  it  is  profane  to  eat  tlie  mystic  Iamb  out  of  this 
house — that  whosoever  doth  not  gaiiier  with  him,  scatlereth,  and 
that  not  to  be  with  liim,  is  to  fall  away  from  Christ,  a?id  to 
declare  oneself  a  friend  of  Antichrist.  Optatus  believed  the 
same,  when  he  declared  it  schismatical  and  sinful  to  erect  any 
Episcopal  chair  in  opposition  to  that  of  Peter,  and  reproached 
the  Donatists  with  calling  themselves  the  Church,  whibt  they 
were  in  a  state  of  separation  from  that  See:  "  Christ,"  savs 
he,  •*  indicates  in  the  canticle  of  canticles,  that  his  dove  is  one, 
that  she  is  a  chosen  spouse,  an  enclosed  garden,  and  a  sealed 
fountain  ;  so  that  all  heretics  neither  have  the  keys  which  Pe- 
ter alone  received,  nor  the  ring  with  which  the  fountain  is  said 
to  be  ."^ealed  :  and  to  none  of  them  the  garilen  belongs  in  which 
God  plants  the  shrubs."  ....  *' What,"  he  afterwards  re- 
marks, "  can  you  say  to  these  things,  you,  who  secretly  cher- 
ish, and  shamelessly  defend  schism,  taking  to  yourselves  the 
name  of  the  Church  ?"• 

If  you  believe,  that  an  oath  of  true  ol)edience  to  the  Pope  is 
taken  by  every  ('atholic,  you  are  in  this,  as  in  other  matters, 
egregiously  mistaken.  Obedience  is  due  to  him  by  all,  as  the 
prelate  placed  over  all ;  but  that  obedience  is  given,  when  the 
faith  is  preserved,  and  the  laws  of  the  Church,  and  its  order, 
are  maintained.  What  individual  Catholic  receives  from  him 
a  command  ?  Yet,  to  read  your  book,  or.e  would  suppose  that 
we  are  daily  receiving  from  him,  or  expecting  to  receive,  new 
mandates.  'I'he  obligation  of  obedience,  resulting  from  the  di- 
vine insiitulion  of  the  Primacy,  is  strengthened  by  no  special 

•     Opt.  Afri.  1.  I.  pp.  7.  17.  Edit.  Wircibiirg. 
2    E 


350  CONCLUSION. 

pledge  on  llie  part  of  the  infinite  majority  of  Catholics.  The 
pledge  is  scarcely  given  by  any,  except  the  clergy  placed  in 
offices  of  high  responsibility,  as  it  is  meet  that  they  should 
give  a  solemn  engagement  to  fulfil  the  trust  reposed  in  them. 
Converts,  in  some  places,  make  it  on  their  admission  into  the 
Church;  because,  having  been  previously  estranged  from  this 
authority,  it  is  deemed  proper  that  they  give  a  voucher  of  their 
sincerity. 

You  proceed  to  ask  us :  "  Why  do  you,  in  the  same  creed 
of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  retain  the  clause  by  which  the  professor  of 
your  faith  most  firmly  admits  and  embraces  Apostolical  and 
ecclesiastical  traditions,  and  all  other  constitutions  and  observ- 
ances of  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  when  there 
are  so  many  changes,  variations,  and  innovations,  brought  in 
upon  the  primitive  system  ?" — Because  it  is  meet,  that  all  the 
children  of  the  Church  should  view  with  reverence  her  observ- 
ances and  institutions,  whether  they  come  down  from  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  or  be  of  later  introduction,  resting  on  the  legislative 
and  governing  authority  of  the  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
The  terms  regard  disciplinary  usages,  rather  than  articles  of 
faith,  and  are  applicable  to  any  modification  of  discipline  which 
may  be  sanctioned  by  the  Church.  As  to  the  points  on  which 
variation  in  discipline  is  asserted  by  you  to  have  taken  place, 
I  think  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into  any  discussion  ;  for  in  all 
things  merely  disciplinary,  tlie  discretion  of  the  governing  power 
may  be  exercised:  but  when  you  begin  by  "  the  kiss  of  c/iari- 
/y,"  which,  however,  is  still  preserved  among  the  rites  of  so- 
lemn mass,  ordination,  and  other  functions,  you  remind  me  of 
the  trivial  causes  of  separation  alleged  by  the  Greeks  against 
the  Latins  in  the  eleventh  century,  one  of  which  was,  that  the 
Jjatins  shaved  their  beards  ! 

Fourthly,  you  ask  :  "  Why  do  you  retain  another  clause  of 
the  same  creed  :  '  I  also  admit  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  according 
to  the  sense  which  the  holy  mother  Church  has  held,  and  docs 
hold,  nor  will  I  ever  lake  or  interpret  them  otherwise  than  ac- 
cording to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers,'  when  it  is  so 
manifest,  that   the  Failiers  do  almost  unanimously  interpret 


ANATHF.MA.  351 

your  lavounie  texts  in  plain  opposition  to  your  present  sys- 
tem ?"  'J'o  us,  al  least,  this  is  not  quite  so  niaiiircsi,  and,  I  should 
hope,  that  you  yourself  have  serious  niisj/ivirigs  as  to  the  cer- 
tainty of  your  inference  from  these  words.  'I'he  rule,  how- 
ever, is  borrowed  from  St  Vincent  of  Lerins.* 

Fifthly,  '*  Why,**  you  say,  "  do  you  (we)  profess  another 
clause  of  the  same  creed  :  •  I  also  profess,  and  undoubtedly  re- 
ceive all  other  things  delivered,  defined,  and  declared  by  the 
sacreil  canons  and  general  councils,  and  particularly  by  the 
Holy  Council  of  'JVcnt,'  when  you  know  so  well,  that  a  vo- 
lume might  be  filled  with  those  passages  from  the  canons  and 
councils  which  retain  no  place  in  your  present  system  ?" — 
There  is  not  a  single  dogma  defined  by  a  General  Council,  that 
is  not  professed  by  the  Catholic  world  at  this  day.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholic  Church,  her  solemn  definitions,  and  au- 
thoritative expositions,  are  especially  contemplated  by  that 
clause.  None  of  the  terms  are  strictly  applicable  to  enact- 
ments :  so  that  you  cannot  fill  a  line,  mucii  less  a  volume, 
with  things  delivered,  defined,  and  declared,  which  are  not  in 
full  vigour. 

**  AVhy,"  you  again  ask,  '•  do  wr  eoniinue  tiie  clause  that 
follows,  in  which  the  believer  is  bound  to  declare,  that  he  con- 
demns, rejects  and  anathematizes  all  things  contrary  thereto, 
and  all  heresies  whatever  condemned  and  anathematized  by  the 
Church  V — The  formulary  is  a  close  imitation  of  the  seventh 
canon  of  the  first  Council  of  Constantinople,  which  is  the  se- 
cond of  the  four  councils  whose  faith  you  profess  to  hold.  In 
that  canon,  the  Fathers  require  that  converts  from  heresy  should 
anathematize  several  sects  of  heretics  by  name,  and,  in  a  general 
way,  every  heresy  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  holy.  Catholic, 
and  Apostolic  Church  of  God.t  You  understand  by  anathema 
a  solemn  curse:  we  have  already  seen,  that  there  are  others 
who  interpret  it  in  the  more   gentle  sense  of  separation  from 

•     Common,  n.  3  ot  n.  2;^. 

t      m.nL^%fjL%Ti^iir%(   vm.vs.t  miftrir  /ui   $f9f  cur  at  m(  ^pct*i  i   tiyln   rt 

^■ttt  x<d-:A.ixii  i  «Vcroxi«a  imnKnvi*. — Can.  Tii.  Cone.  1.  Const.  Col 
812.  Tom   I. 


352  CONCLUSION. 

the  Church  of  God;  but  as  the  heresies  are  the  object  of  the 
anathema,  it  may  not  appear  so  odious  to  analliematize 
them  as  it  wouhl  be  the  persons  who  profess  them.  You  are 
compelled  to  admit  that  the  primitive  Church  was  wont  to  use 
this  formulary;  but  you  assert  that  "she  confined  it  to  errors 
in  the  fundamental  articles  of  faith."*  Tiie  canon  just  quoted 
proves  that  she  was  equally  unsparing  as  the  Council  of  Trent 
towards  all  heresies  whatsoever:  and  all  ecclesiastical  history 
shows  that  the  Church  anathematized  all  errors  against  re- 
vealed truth,  whether  that  truth  was  fundamental  or  otherwise. 
Thus  the  Novatians,  whose  error  regarding  the  power  of  for- 
giveness, and  the  Quartoderimans  observing  Easter  on  the 
same  day  as  the  Jews  and  the  Rebaptizers,  fell  under  the  ana- 
thema of  the  ancient  Church.  This  formulary,  borrowed  from 
St  Paul,  was  considered  as  sanctioned  by  the  divine  injunction 
— "  If  he  will  not  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  to  thee  as  the 
heathen  and  the  publican."!  You  need  no  longer  be  scanda- 
lized at  the  use  of  this  expression  in  regard  to  heresies  or  here- 
tics, for  it  has  great  precedents  and  high  authority  in  its  favour. 
You  know  that  the  acclamations  of  the  Council  of  Trent  were 
but  the  echo  of  all  the  ancient  councils.  If  it  pronounced 
many  anathemas,  it  is  only  a  melancholy  evidence,  that  errors, 
opposed  to  the  truth  of  God,  were  broached  in  great  number. 
I  shall  leave  you  to  interpret  "  anathema"  as  you  please,  and 
only  observe  that  the  Fathers  of  Trent  affected  no  greater  charity 
than  that  which  animated  the  early  Fathers,  who,  in  like  man- 
ner, proscribed  every  novelty  that  opposed  the  knowledge  of 
God — and  that  which  the  Apostle  of  nations  cherished,  who 
himself  would  have  wished  to  be  an  anathema  from  Christ  for 
the  sake  and  salvation  of  his  erring  brethren. 

I  almost  sicken  with  disgust  at  perceiving  men  delicate  in 
the  choice  of  words,  w^hen  the  rejection  or  detestation  of  per- 

*  Bishop  Bull,  of  the  Establishment,  wrote  against  Episcopius,  in 
vindication  of  the  analhima  pronounced  at  Nice  against  the  Arians. — 
See  his  work  entitled  "Judicium  Kcclesiae  Catholicte,  &c."  Episcopius 
had  called  the  Nicene  anathema  **  harsh  and  uncharitable." 

\     Malt,  xviii.  17. 


pravi:r  for  civil  AniiouiTiKs.  353 

nicioi'.s  error  is  to  be  expressed,  :uul  reckless  in  advancing 
chari'es  aHeclino^  ihe  character  and  the  rijjhls  of  millions  of  llieir 
fellow  beings.  You  say:  '*  throughout  the  British  dominions 
you  are  bound  to  curse,  as  a  herrfic,  the  monarch  whom  you 
obey  as  a  king."  You  bring  the  mailer  to  our  doors:  •'  True 
it  is,  that  even  in  the  United  Slates,  the  same  melancholy  ne- 
cessily  pursues  you."  It  does  not  become  me  to  repel  ihese 
assertions  in  the  strong  language  which  ihey  provoke  and  so 
juslly  merit:  but  I  must  inform  you  that  you  are  grievously 
mistaken.  The  early  Christians  prayed  for  the  pagan 
emperors,  even  for  those  who  persecuted  them  :  and  we  sin- 
cerely pray  for  all  those  who  arc  in  high  station,  whether 
they  oppress  or  protect  us.  The  anathemas  which  the  tribu- 
nals of  the  Church  have  pronounced  against  the  professors  of 
heresy,  deprive  them  of  tiie  privileges  of  ecclesiastical  com- 
munion, but  do  not  change  the  social  relations.  We  are 
known  publicly  and  solemnly  to  pray  for  the  president,  for 
congress,  for  the  governor  and  legislature,  and  for  all  our  fel- 
low-citizens ;  and  we  yield  to  noi'.e  in  ihe  sincerity  of  our  sup- 
plications for  the  prosperity  of  the  national  and  slate  govern- 
ments, and  the  happiness,  temporal  and  eternal,  of  all — even  of 
those  who  either  openly  traduce  us,  or  who,  with  the  honied 
accents  of  kindness  on  their  lips,  utter  unworthy  insinuations 
against  our  principles  and  conduct. 

Lastly,  you  ask  :  "  why  do  you  cling  to  the  phantom  of  in- 
fallibility ?"  You  may  call  it  a  phantom,  but  Jesus  ('hrist 
gives  us  the  assurance  that  it  is  He  who  teaches  through  the 
Apostolic  ministry  :•  and  his  Aposile  declares  that  ihe  ('hurch 
is  "  the  pillar  aiul  the  groimd  of  truth. "t  Tiie  experience  of 
eighteen  centuries  shows  that  his  words  have  not  failed,  for  not 
a  single  dogma  has  ever  been  solemnly  defined  which  it  has 
been  found  necessary  to  recall  or  abandon,  'i'he  temporal 
power  of  ihc  I'oj)c  haunts  you  as  a  phantom  ;  and  because  it 
appeared  in  the  middle  ages,  and  disappeared  when  society 
had  assumed  anew  form,  you  insist  that  the  infallibiliiy  of  our 

•     Matt,  xxviii.  '>,  uit.  t      1  Tim.  iii.  ITi. 

2e* 


354  CONCLUSION. 

doctrinal  tribunals  has  been  forfeited.  You  will  not  consider 
whether  the  Pontiff  acted  as  the  higliest  interpreter  of  moral 
obligation,  defining  the  limits  of  relative  (kuies- between  sub- 
jects and  sovereigns,  wlien  both  appealed  to  his  judgment — or 
whetiier  his  peculiar  influence  in  the  revival  of  the  western 
empire  gave  him  special  rights  over  the  occupant  of  the  throne; 
— or  whether  the  voluntary  acts  of  sovereigns  themselves  gave 
him  the  authority  of  a  lord  paramount;  or  whether  the  very 
structure  of  society  disposed  men  tacitly  to  concede,  or  recog- 
nise this  power.*  None  of  these,  or  other  considerations, 
though  all  grounded  on  facts  of  history,  are  admitted  by  you  to 
account  for  the  prevalence  of  the  opinion  favourable  to  the  tem- 
poral claim  :  but  you  fancy  it  to  be  a  dogma,  though  no  Pontiff 
ever  proposed  it  as  such  ;  and  you  reason  thence  against  what 
you  are  pleased  to  call  "  the  phantom  of  infallibility!" 

You  make  a  distinction,  which,  to  me,  is  somewhat  novel,  he- 
iween  failing  2LWi\  falling.  "  The  Saviour"  you  say  "prayed  for 
St  Peter,  that  his  faith  should  not  fail :  therefore,  that  faith  was 
certainly  infallible.  But  although  the  Apostle's  faith  was  not 
allowed  to  fail,  it  was  assuredly  allowed  to  fall,  so  that  he  de- 
nied his  master  !"  When  Christ  disclosed  to  Peter  the  vio- 
lent efforts  which  Satan  was  determined  to  make  against  all 
the  Apostles,  and  gave  him  the  assurance  of  having  made  a 
special  prayer  for  him,  he  did  not  surely  refer  to  the  approach- 
ing temptation  of  that  tragic  night,  for  then  he  was  to  prove 
more  frail  than  the  others.  He  especially  regarded  the  time 
in  which  he  was  to  discharge  the  duties  of  his  ofTice,  as  head 
of  the  Church,  by  confirming  his  brethren  in  faith.  How 
beautifully,  how  naturally,  does  the  great  Leo  explain  the  Sa- 
cred Text!  "  The  danger  arising  from  the  temptation  of  fear, 
was  common  to  all  the  Apostles,  and  they  likewise  needed  the 

*  Although  the  empire  was  not  a  feud,  the  whole  fabric  of  society  was 
feudal,  and  the  dependance  of  sovereigns  on  the  Pope,  as  the  representa- 
tive of  Him  who  is  the  source  of  power,  was  more  easily  conceived  than 
the  dependence  of  an  inferior  lord  on  the  sovereign.  The  ideas  of  men 
were  borrowed  from  the  actual  social  relations,  and  every  thing  assumed 
a  feudal  charactei-,  just  as  the  republican  system  prevails,  and  its  forms 
are  assumed  here  most  naturally  in  all  the  relations  of  society. 


PLAN  OF   RE-UNION.  355 

aid  of  the  Divine  proleoiion,  since  llie  devil  was  desirous  of 
hanissin^r  llieni  all,  and  of  destroying  ilieni  all  ;  and  yel,  .«^j)ecial 
care  of  Peter  is  taken  by  the  Lord,  and  supplicmion  is  made 
especially  for  ihe  failli  of  Peter,  as  if  the  slate  of  the  others  is 
likely  to  be  more  sec'ure,  if  the  mind  of  the  prince  be  not  over- 
come."* But,  explain  as  you  will  this  text,  have  you  not 
heard  Christ's  promise,  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail? 
I  am  not  disposed  to  borrow  your  phraseology,  and  term  your 
nice  distinction  between y'c/////j if  nnd  /'(t//ini(  mere  trifling;  but 
when  I  see  you  perpetually  recurring  to  the  opinion  about  the 
temporal  power,  1  cannot  but  think  that  you  feel  the  difficulty 
of  combating,  by  direct  argument,  the  certain  prerogatives  of 
the  Primacy. 

AVe  have,  at  length,  arrived  at  your  conclusion.  You  ad- 
vert to  the  plan  of  re-union,  which  was  entertained,  for  a  lime, 
by  Bossuet,  Leibnitz,  and  some  others,  but  which  was  soon 
abandoned  ;  and  you  express  your  reasons  for  believing  that 
there  is,  al  present,  an  approximation  towards  unity.  I  am 
surprised,  however,  to  tindyou  laying  great  stress  on  the  part 
which  governments  should  lake  in  bringing  about  so  desirable 
an  object.  Surely  this  observalion  is,  at  least,  useless  in  this 
country,  where  the  government  cannot  in  any  way  interfere  in 
matters  of  a  purely  religious  nature,  and  is  scarcely  in  harmony 
with  the  sj)irit  of  the  age  in  which  wt*  live.  '*'J'he  ellbrts, 
however,"  you  add,  addressing  us,  "  necessary  for  such  a  pur- 
pose, rest  chielly  with  yourselves,"  and  ihe  reason  you  give, 
is  indeed  extraordinary  in  liie  exlren)e.  *' As  your  claims  now 
stand,  it  is  a  mistake  lo  sujipose  that  you  can  be  sali.'irutl  with 
equal  rights  and  privileges.  You  may  think  so  in  a  country 
like  the  United  States,  so  long  as  nothing  belter  is  attainable. 
You  may  think  so  in  a  country  like  (iieat  Britain,  where  you 
have  been  deprived  of  those  equal  riuhis  for  cenluries  :"  you 
might  have  added  that  we  think  so  in  France,  and  in  B(  Igium, 
where   we  arc  cmphalically  the  nation.      But,  by  whal  right 

S.  Leo  M.  Svrin.  3,  in  anniv.  asauinpt.  suic. 


356  CONCLUSION. 

do  you  make  an  assertion  so  prejudicial  to  our  civil  rights,  and 
excite  the  jealousy  and  suspicion  of  our  fellow  citizens,  belong- 
ing, as  you  do,  to  a  church  which,  in  the  only  country  in  which 
it  can  be  said  to  have  had  existence,  or,  at  least,  influence  and 
power,  has  "galled  us,"  as  you  admit,  "with  the  yoke  of 
Protestant  ascendancy  ?"  Do  you  not  lay  yourself  open  to  the 
suspicion  of  sigliing  after  the  union  of  church  and  state,  when, 
after  having,  throughout  your  work,  laid  much  stress  on 
the  part  which  emperors  took  in  convoking  councils,  at  its 
close  you  distinctly  state,  that  the  great  majority  of  the  early 

councils  WERE  ORDERED    BY    THE    GOVERNMENT?       What  WOUld 

you  say  of  us,  were  we  to  repeat  your  remark,  that  "a  judi- 
cious employment  of  encouraging  eflbrt,  on  tlie  part  of  those 
governments  which  have  an  established  religion  to  maintain, 
would  soon,  under  God,  produce  a  settlement  of  all  serious 
difficulty?" 

You  multiply  assertions,  which,  to  say  the  least,  are  ground- 
less. Thus,  addressing  us,  you  say :  "  You  are  bound  in 
conscience,  to  contend  for  power,  until  your  Church  is  what 
you  think  she  ought  to  be,  the  acknowledged  mistress  of  the 
world.  You  are  bound  in  conscience  to  be  discontented  un- 
til your  rulers  conform  to  your  faith."  .  .  .  You  accuse  us  "of 
being  compelled,  by  the  very  terms  of  our  professed  belief,  to 
intrigue,  to  agitate,  to  proselyte,  to  strive  and  to  peisevere, 
until  we  have  gained  every  inch  of  our  ancient  territory." 
These  are  serious  ciiarges  :  they  ought  not  to  have  beenliglitly 
or  wantonly  made.  Permit  me  to  say,  sir,  with  all  the  em- 
phasis which  truth  can  warrant,  or  self-respect  allow,  that  we 
have  no  power  to  contend  for,  save  the  triumph  of  truth,  by 
the  acceptance  of  the  eternal  Gospel  of  Him  whose  kingdom 
is  not  of  this  world.  AVhen  He  shall  reign  in  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  all,  from  one  extremity  of  the  earth  to  the  other,  then 
shall  his  Church  appear  as  a  queen  on  his  rigiit  hand  in  golden 
vesture,  sparkling  with  every  precious  ornament.  The  vir- 
tues of  her  chiklren — the  humility  of  their  faitli — the  purity  of 
their  love— their  patience  under  oppression — their  heroic  re- 


SPIRITUAL  TRIUMPH.  367 

turn  of  kindness  to  tlieir  traducers — are  llie  brightest  jewels 
of  lier  crowii — and  she  covets  no  dominion — no  ast-cndancy — 
save  that  of  virtue  over  vice — of  faith  over  unbelief — of  the 
truth  of  God,  and  of  his  grace  over  the  passions  and  pride  of 
his  rebellious  creatures.  ♦*  The  weapons  of  our  warfare  are 
not  carnal,  but  powerful  through  God  to  the  destruction  of  for- 
tifications, subverting  of  counsels,  and  every  height  that  ex- 
alteth  itself  against  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  bringing  into 
captivity  every  understanding  to  the  obedience  of  Christ."^ 
— Our  ol)ligaiions  are  somewhat  belter  understood  by  our- 
selves, than  you  have  succeeded  in  explaining  them.  We  are 
bound  to  respect  our  rulers,  and  to  submit  to  every  legitimate 
exercise  of  the  established  authorities, — to  obey  the  laws, — to 
maintain  the  order  of  society — to  love  all  men — and  last,  not 
least  of  all,  to  pray  for  them  that  persecute  and  calumniate  us. 
There  are  persons  who  intrigue,  who  agitate,  who  proselytize, 
who  are  never  weary  in  devising  schemes  for  gathering  mo- 
ney, and  scattering  tracts,  and  who  send  agents  in  every  direc- 
tion, avowedly  to  oppose  the  diffusion  of  our  faith  ;  and  yet  I 
would  rather  ascribe  all  this  to  that  zeal  which  is  not  according 
to  knowledge,  than  to  any  malignant  spirit  of  anti-christian 
hate.  You  exhort  us  to  examine  over  and  over  again  the 
grounds  of  our  system  :  but,  it  has  been  the  study  and  guide 
of  our  youth — the  meditation  which  occupied  mature  age,  and 
gave  us  strength  for  virtuous  exertion  ;  and  we  have  seen  num- 
bers expire  in  the  settled  conviction  of  its  truth  and  divine 
origin.  Every  examination  confirms  the  belief,  that  God  is 
its  author,  and  challenges  the  expression  of  our  gratitude  to 
Him,  who  strengthens  the  pupil  of  our  eye  to  gaze  on  his 
glory,  as  here  rellecled  through  the  mirror  of  revelation,  for 
**  he  liath  not  done  in  like  manner  to  every  nation,  nor  hatli 
he  manifested  his  judgments  to  them."t 

You  seem  to  have  written   for  the  government  of  England 
and  for  the  congress  of  sovereigns,  whom  you  urge  to  bring 


2  Cor.  X.  4.  t      Psalm  cxlvii. 


